Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Cutting Medicare and social security would free up money that is currently being spent on pampering wealthy boomers and silents, so that said money can be spent on infrastructure, industry, education, social programs for the poor and on improving the military. The nation would be spending on its future once again.

I see some Boomers and Silents who, while perhaps not 1%ers are at least 4%ers. And yet, they collect. That is a crime. No one that rich should receive an entitlement at full value (if at all). Unfair a bit in that they paid in and get a diminished benefit. So what. I would tell them: Get over it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Cut funding for the military, and there'll be more funding for things like infrastructure and education.

Cut military in this geopolitical environment? Are you nucking futs?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I see some Boomers and Silents who, while perhaps not 1%ers are at least 4%ers. And yet, they collect. That is a crime. No one that rich should receive an entitlement at full value (if at all). Unfair a bit in that they paid in and get a diminished benefit. So what. I would tell them: Get over it.

But they won't.

Cut military in this geopolitical environment? Are you nucking futs?

Maybe. But I think we spend way too much on military stuff we don't need. Does the USA really have to have a military so much bigger than other countries?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This has become personal to me. As you know, I'm involved with solidly middle-class African American. His son, when finishing up in high school in the early 2000s, was smart and a good student, but did stuff that kids do. He and some white friends were caught with dope. Guess who went to jail. If it wasn't for the pressure that his parents put on the system (and the fact that they were educated and solidly middle-class professionals), his life could very well have been ruined. Instead, he was released shortly before he started college and eventually his record was expunged. Today, he's a model 31-year-old, an accountant, a homeowner, active in his community, and a married father of three. But it could easily have turned out very bad.

I could've easily been in the same situation as him during high school. I was on the radar during my high school years. I was frequently called into the office with the hope that I would rat on some person to save myself from facing potential charges and punishment. I wasn't a known criminal or drug dealer or socially considered to be riff raff. I was socially connected with a group that was at the center of everything fun and not legal that went on during our high school years. We knew all the drug dealers in town. We were acquainted with the riff raff as well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But they won't.


Maybe. But I think we spend way too much on military stuff we don't need. Does the USA really have to have a military so much bigger than other countries?

But Remember we are shouldering the burden of not just our defense, but at least Europe's as well because the latter won't spend on their own defense largely because they were encouraged not to do so by boomer ideologues such as yourself. Japan and South Korea are also leaner militarily than they could be if they chose. Even Israel is leaner than it was 30 to 40 years ago. Because of this and because boomer ideologues won't abandon their notions of a utopia, the US has to spend much more than other countries on defense.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Cut military in this geopolitical environment? Are you nucking futs?

What good does this style of military do us in the current environment. We're still acting like we might need to storm Normandy a couple more times. That style of military is completely unnecessary for the operation they need to perform.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I see some Boomers and Silents who, while perhaps not 1%ers are at least 4%ers. And yet, they collect. That is a crime. No one that rich should receive an entitlement at full value (if at all). Unfair a bit in that they paid in and get a diminished benefit. So what. I would tell them: Get over it.

I see some major bad karma here. If GenX ever gets the idea out of jealously of just vindictiveness towards Boomers as a whole wrt age related entitlements , Boomers won't take the hit, but rather this whole attitude will just BOOMerang back on GenX. Afterall, the largest 5 year cohort group is 1961-1965 which makes us a nice fat juicy target down the road. That group so happens to be you and I my friend.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I see some major bad karma here. If GenX ever gets the idea out of jealously of just vindictiveness towards Boomers as a whole wrt age related entitlements , Boomers won't take the hit, but rather this whole attitude will just BOOMerang back on GenX. Afterall, the largest 5 year cohort group is 1961-1965 which makes us a nice fat juicy target down the road. That group so happens to be you and I my friend.

Unless you are in an arena of high 7 or 8 figure assets and high 6 figure income or more (meaning, high income will continue after aging sets in) you would not be affected at all by what I propose.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Riff raff does not exclude them nor does it excuse their unruly behavior and the term does not pertain to the disadvantaged minorities in paticular. I had a nasty stare down with one of your white riff raff's during the Bush rally in St. Paul who was trying to scare my mother. I wasn't afraid of him. I'd dealt with his type before during my high school years. The 80's teenagers were always dealing with their own riff raff during high school and at school events. The high schools wouldn't have been able to operate without students who were willing and able to deal with the riff raff and emotionally accept what happened to the riff raff during the 80's.

Well, to start with we have this Riff Raff from the Underdog show:



I don't get what exactly you're saying about this. Anyhow, let's start out with a common prison saying : "snitches get stitches". I attended school in a small town and all the rules went out the window in 1969. That means that if someone was givin ya some smack, you were on your own as to how to deal with it. Besides stuff just kept going downhill even after that. Here's the catch. If you got good grades in hard subjects like algebra, pre-calc, and the sciences you got to slide by. I was able to deliver a smackdown on the school bus to get a seat [sometimes a needed thing], my English teacher saying just take some dude giving me some smack in her classroom off school property for a smackdown. [The dude decided to back down...]. I did get 1 detention from the shop teacher for fighting though in 8th grade, oh well. I think the smackdown comes down to this. It's better that you personally deliver the smackdown because you will not be on school property all of the time. If you want pests off your back that's the best way. Let's see, I got caught playing poker while in home room, was either high or drunk most of the time in high school, and did some vandalism. So yeah, I could be riff-raff based on my teen model years say model year 17. OTOH, I wasn't riff raff with a 3.8 grade average in advanced subject matter. My guess is that if someone with a piss poor academic record did what I'd did, the outcome and consequences would be different. I'm not even bringing race into this one because I personally don't know how that aspect would play out. Now guessing from what others have posted is that if I didn't "pass" for white something else may have happened. I mean I have a younger sister who lives in Fredricksberg and folks there ask here where she's from. It seams to me that she ain't "passing" over there. That sort of thing doesn't really happen here in Oklahoma because Native Americans and whites are all interbred so much.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, to start with we have this Riff Raff from the Underdog show:



I don't get what exactly you're saying about this. Anyhow, let's start out with a common prison saying : "snitches get stitches". I attended school in a small town and all the rules went out the window in 1969. That means that if someone was givin ya some smack, you were on your own as to how to deal with it. Besides stuff just kept going downhill even after that. Here's the catch. If you got good grades in hard subjects like algebra, pre-calc, and the sciences you got to slide by. I was able to deliver a smackdown on the school bus to get a seat [sometimes a needed thing], my English teacher saying just take some dude giving me some smack in her classroom off school property for a smackdown. [The dude decided to back down...]. I did get 1 detention from the shop teacher for fighting though in 8th grade, oh well. I think the smackdown comes down to this. It's better that you personally deliver the smackdown because you will not be on school property all of the time. If you want pests off your back that's the best way. Let's see, I got caught playing poker while in home room, was either high or drunk most of the time in high school, and did some vandalism. So yeah, I could be riff-raff based on my teen model years say model year 17. OTOH, I wasn't riff raff with a 3.8 grade average in advanced subject matter. My guess is that if someone with a piss poor academic record did what I'd did, the outcome and consequences would be different. I'm not even bringing race into this one because I personally don't know how that aspect would play out. Now guessing from what others have posted is that if I didn't "pass" for white something else may have happened. I mean I have a younger sister who lives in Fredricksberg and folks there ask here where she's from. It seams to me that she ain't "passing" over there. That sort of thing doesn't really happen here in Oklahoma because Native Americans and whites are all interbred so much.

We went through a phase in life and we were often viewed and treated/punished as if we were just going through a phase in life. We weren't riffraff and weren't ever considered to be riffraff (disreputable people). We were just immature teenagers who would eventually grow up and become reputable adults or arrogant teenagers who would eventually learn from the consequences of the mistakes that we made as teenagers and not continue to make those mistakes as adults.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Unless you are in an arena of high 7 or 8 figure assets and high 6 figure income or more (meaning, high income will continue after aging sets in) you would not be affected at all by what I propose.

Well, I do believe Social Security benefits are taxed at present. So I think the best karma preventative is to simply advocate higher income tax brackets instead of sucking assorted generations into such a discussion. So, I think I'm with Eric on this one.
1. Higher marginal income tax rates.
2. Chuck a whole slew of tax breaks to go along with it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...d-corporations
3. I don't want the Republicans to get a hold of any ideas of cutting any Social Security benefits at all because they'll use it for their own ends of just doing away with the program. Advocating a straight increase in marginal rates cuts them off at the pass. If they bitch about fat cats on Social Security, the debate switches to taxing other fat cats as well.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, to start with we have this Riff Raff from the Underdog show:



I don't get what exactly you're saying about this. Anyhow, let's start out with a common prison saying : "snitches get stitches". I attended school in a small town and all the rules went out the window in 1969. That means that if someone was givin ya some smack, you were on your own as to how to deal with it. Besides stuff just kept going downhill even after that. Here's the catch. If you got good grades in hard subjects like algebra, pre-calc, and the sciences you got to slide by. I was able to deliver a smackdown on the school bus to get a seat [sometimes a needed thing], my English teacher saying just take some dude giving me some smack in her classroom off school property for a smackdown. [The dude decided to back down...]. I did get 1 detention from the shop teacher for fighting though in 8th grade, oh well. I think the smackdown comes down to this. It's better that you personally deliver the smackdown because you will not be on school property all of the time. If you want pests off your back that's the best way. Let's see, I got caught playing poker while in home room, was either high or drunk most of the time in high school, and did some vandalism. So yeah, I could be riff-raff based on my teen model years say model year 17. OTOH, I wasn't riff raff with a 3.8 grade average in advanced subject matter. My guess is that if someone with a piss poor academic record did what I'd did, the outcome and consequences would be different. I'm not even bringing race into this one because I personally don't know how that aspect would play out. Now guessing from what others have posted is that if I didn't "pass" for white something else may have happened. I mean I have a younger sister who lives in Fredricksberg and folks there ask here where she's from. It seams to me that she ain't "passing" over there. That sort of thing doesn't really happen here in Oklahoma because Native Americans and whites are all interbred so much.

Fredericksburg, Texas? Split between white people (largely of German origin) and Mexican-American mestizos. Your sister probably has some explaining to do.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Fredericksburg, Texas? Split between white people (largely of German origin) and Mexican-American mestizos. Your sister probably has some explaining to do.

No, Fredericksburg , Virginia. [I see I misspelled the name of the city.] But , I think you're right in they want to know which Latin America Country it is.
German? We're that as well. My eldest cousin and I are using FTdna to sort out dad's family roots. At present, there's an L shaped list of matches going from Rostock Germany to Hannover, some places in Holland, and up into Eastern England with some folks with Anglo-Saxon Names.

"Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people"

B. Sanders.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I see some Boomers and Silents who, while perhaps not 1%ers are at least 4%ers. And yet, they collect. That is a crime. No one that rich should receive an entitlement at full value (if at all). Unfair a bit in that they paid in and get a diminished benefit. So what. I would tell them: Get over it.

Eliminate the payroll taxes for EVERYONE, then cut the benefits to the top 4% - the only impact will be instead of rounding down to $18T in federal debt, we'd round up to $19T, and NOBODY will notice THAT difference in their actual lives - but, everyone will benefit from the additional spending coming from that tax cut.

The only real concern possibly comes from adding that additional spending to ALL other, private as well as public, spending and whether it significantly exceeds the capacity of the economy to supply; if it does, then we get upward pressure on prices. However, right now, the demand pressure is barely sufficient to maintain the barest of economic/employment growth, and, most importantly, we remain close to the brink of dis-inflation where the next downturn in business cycle (that always comes) could tip us into soup-lines de-flation.

That holds true for today or 30 years from now. And if anyone tells you they know what the demand/supply balance will be next year, let alone in a decade or two, they are full of horse-pucky.

The fact that people make these false tradeoffs (e.g., cut SS benefits to 'pay' for infrastructure) just goes to show how all-encompassing the federal deficit/debt myth has entrenched itself across all points on the intellectual as well as political spectrums.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Eliminate the payroll taxes for EVERYONE, then cut the benefits to the top 4% - the only impact will be instead of rounding down to $18T in federal debt, we'd round up to $19T, and NOBODY will notice THAT difference in their actual lives - but, everyone will benefit from the additional spending coming from that tax cut.

The only real concern possibly comes from adding that additional spending to ALL other, private as well as public, spending and whether it significantly exceeds the capacity of the economy to supply; if it does, then we get upward pressure on prices. However, right now, the demand pressure is barely sufficient to maintain the barest of economic/employment growth, and, most importantly, we remain close to the brink of dis-inflation where the next downturn in business cycle (that always comes) could tip us into soup-lines de-flation.

That holds true for today or 30 years from now. And if anyone tells you they know what the demand/supply balance will be next year, let alone in a decade or two, they are full of horse-pucky.

The fact that people make these false tradeoffs (e.g., cut SS benefits to 'pay' for infrastructure) just goes to show how all-encompassing the federal deficit/debt myth has entrenched itself across all points on the intellectual as well as political spectrums.

There is a huge risk to the SS system by moving to the General Fund. It's psychological, but the structure as it is looks a lot like any other annuity. Yes, there is some redistributive function and it's also insurance, but people see this as something they bought and deserve to get in their old age. Cut the link to Payroll taxes and it's just another bloated welfare program needing a takedown. Of course, everyone assume the takedown comes out of hides other than their own. Yet they can be convinced that it's a bloated giveaway, and vote for their own starvation.

No one ever lost money underestimating the wisdom of the American People: P.T. Barnum.

We need vigorous government, not government by ideologue, money and orthodoxy. Government evaluated by results and determined by merit is what we should have.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is a huge risk to the SS system by moving to the General Fund. It's psychological, but the structure as it is looks a lot like any other annuity. Yes, there is some redistributive function and it's also insurance, but people see this as something they bought and deserve to get in their old age. Cut the link to Payroll taxes and it's just another bloated welfare program needing a takedown. Of course, everyone assume the takedown comes out of hides other than their own. Yet they can be convinced that it's a bloated giveaway, and vote for their own starvation.

No one ever lost money underestimating the wisdom of the American People: P.T. Barnum.

We've discussed this before and you are right. I've had that position as well. Pretty easy to see when one realizes that about 25% of the voters operate at CH86's level.

However, it comes at a very very high price - it reinforces the myth that federal govt spending is constrained by revenue. That myth not only continues to threaten the safety nets as well as increasingly desperate needs for infrastructure, educational and R&D investments (the only things society can leave for future generations) but it is what keeps the elite manipulators of the amygdala-dominated sheeple in power.

Maybe it is going to take the threatened demise of the SS and Medicare to wake enough people the F up. Maybe the demographics are not there yet, but with each passing election we get closer.

__________________________________________________ _______
Addendum

I just saw Mayor de Blasio on Morning Joe talking about putting together the Progressive equivalent of Newt Gingrich's 1990s "Contact for (or was it 'on'?) America" and holding a summit of both Dem and GOP candidates to be put on the spot for how they would deal with inequity and the tenants of the Progressive approach.

Moaning Joe went for the jugular - "And what is the cornerstone of your Progressive agenda"

Mayor de Blasio - "Progressive taxation."

World gestalt - "Yawn. Dead on arrival."

It's amazing how much everyone is trapped in the box and don't have the slightest hint of a clue.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We've discussed this before and you are right. I've had that position as well. Pretty easy to see when one realizes that about 25% of the voters operate at CH86's level.

However, it comes at a very very high price - it reinforces the myth that federal govt spending is constrained by revenue. That myth not only continues to threaten the safety nets as well as increasingly desperate needs for infrastructure, educational and R&D investments (the only things society can leave for future generations) but it is what keeps the elite manipulators of the amygdala-dominated sheeple in power.

Maybe it is going to take the threatened demise of the SS and Medicare to wake enough people the F up. Maybe the demographics are not there yet, but with each passing election we get closer.

__________________________________________________ _______
Addendum

I just saw Mayor de Blasio on Morning Joe talking about putting together the Progressive equivalent of Newt Gingrich's 1990s "Contact for (or was it 'on'?) America" and holding a summit of both Dem and GOP candidates to be put on the spot for how they would deal with inequity and the tenants of the Progressive approach.

Moaning Joe went for the jugular - "And what is the cornerstone of your Progressive agenda"

Mayor de Blasio - "Progressive taxation."

World gestalt - "Yawn. Dead on arrival."

It's amazing how much everyone is trapped in the box and don't have the slightest hint of a clue.

You live in a nation where most everything and most everyone else are constrained by revenue except the federal government and you don't appear to understand where the disconnect is and why there's the disconnect between your view and way of thinking and the views and way of thinking of most everyone else. Where's our printing press? We want our own money printing machines vs relying on the fed's printing machines.

I'm all for increased government spending, however all spending should be based on hard cash. To this end we need to cut Medicare and social security in order to free up trillions of dollars to spend on industry, infrastructure, education, social programs and on the military. As for the corporations, the need to recompense their ill-gotten gains is obvious, therefore the government would be empowered to relieve them of their enormous wealth. As for the corporations themselves, many of them would be placed under government control and merged under the control of official corporations administrated by the state, other corporations would be broken up and their assets divided between the new meritocratic elite and/or sold to rising entrepreneurs.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You live in a nation where most everything and most everyone else are constrained by revenue except the federal government...

Yep.

... and you don't appear to understand where the disconnect is and why there's the disconnect between your view and way of thinking and the views and way of thinking of most everyone else.

Nope, I actually know it well. For those with the intellect, it comes down to intellectual laziness; for those enslaved by their overactive amygdala, fear keeps their intellectual curiosity pretty feeble.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Where's our printing press?

Actually its the banks that have the printing presses - actually computer keystrokes that create electronic deposits when they make loans; in comparison, the federal govt's press of coins and paper money is comparatively pretty small. The real difference between the feds and everyone else is the banks cannot turn down a loan when the feds come knocking, otherwise they wouldn't be a bank any more; that's not true for you or I or any person, business or local/state govt. If you just give it a little bit of thought, but that requires some effort and not giving in to your amygdala' impulses.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We want our own money printing machines...

No, what you want/need is spending. No one can have income without someone else spending. And the funny thing is, you can't tell the difference between a dollar coming from the feds, a business or a person.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

vs relying on the fed's printing machines.

Well, to be accurate it is mostly the banks that crank up the presses when the feds spend. What's important is the spending.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep.



Nope, I actually know it well. For those with the intellect, it comes down to intellectual laziness; for those enslaved by their overactive amygdala, fear keeps their intellectual curiosity pretty feeble.



Actually its the banks that have the printing presses - actually computer keystrokes that create electronic deposits when they make loans; in comparison, the federal govt's press of coins and paper money is comparatively pretty small. The real difference between the feds and everyone else is the banks cannot turn down a loan when the feds come knocking, otherwise they wouldn't be a bank any more; that's not true for you or I or any person, business or local/state govt. If you just give it a little bit of thought, but that requires some effort and not giving in to your amygdala' impulses.



No, what you want/need is spending. No one can have income without someone else spending. And the funny thing is, you can't tell the difference between a dollar coming from the feds, a business or a person.



Well, to be accurate it is mostly the banks that crank up the presses when the feds spend. What's important is the spending.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the government borrows from rich people (in your case a portion of the financial proceeds inherited from a wealthy ancestor) or borrows against (essentially liquifying those funds) a trust funds like our Social Security or our capital assets like our National Forests which creates the government funds that the fed receives a portion to loan to banks that the banks loan to businesses and people like us. Pretty hard for banks to crank up presses when banks aren't allowed to have their own federal printing presses and free access to endless federal digits and are legally bound to enter into financial agreement with the fed and borrow government funds from the fed.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Nope, I actually know it well. For those with the intellect, it comes down to intellectual laziness; for those enslaved by their overactive amygdala, fear keeps their intellectual curiosity pretty feeble.

For those with the intellect who are your skeptics, it comes down to your intellectual capability, display of practical knowledge and ability to prove that their beliefs and understandings are wrong and no longer apply to anyone on the globe. For those who aren't as susceptible to being duped who are naturally concerned about people or repulsed by those who express views that appear to be out of touch with the reality of most, it comes down to proof of sanity and a natural ability to establish faith in ones own views. As a general rule, American's require more than a lively imagination and unrealistic comments to change its way of thinking and believe in a system that doesn't exist to them.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No, what you want/need is spending. No one can have income without someone else spending. And the funny thing is, you can't tell the difference between a dollar coming from the feds, a business or a person.

True. A dollar is a dollar. The dollar in your investment account is as valuable as the dollar in my wallet and the dollar in the welfare recipients hand. According to liberal belief, the dollar in my wallet and the dollar in the welfare recipients hand is more valuable than the dollar received from your dead ancestor.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Actually its the banks that have the printing presses - actually computer keystrokes that create electronic deposits when they make loans; in comparison, the federal govt's press of coins and paper money is comparatively pretty small. The real difference between the feds and everyone else is the banks cannot turn down a loan when the feds come knocking, otherwise they wouldn't be a bank any more; that's not true for you or I or any person, business or local/state govt. If you just give it a little bit of thought, but that requires some effort and not giving in to your amygdala' impulses.

As most folks here know, I think banks are worthless cruft and grifters. Let's all have software that will allow us to keystroke money into our credit union accounts. That for sure would fix any demand issues. If I want to go on a poker junket in Vegas and have all sea food meals, no prob. I'd book some reservations , see what the costs are and keystroke that amount of money into my checking account. The demand value in Vegas would go up. This is far better than QE(x) where Feddie Fundies are going straight into a whole shitpot of asset bubbles. Let's be real, Vegas junkets don't wreck the real economy like popping bubbles.

No, what you want/need is spending. No one can have income without someone else spending. And the funny thing is, you can't tell the difference between a dollar coming from the feds, a business or a person.

As per above I choose a person with keystroke software. Let's all sing it, Dire Straits - Money for nothing , your chicks for free.

Well, to be accurate it is mostly the banks that crank up the presses when the feds spend. What's important is the spending.

Yeah, but you have to pay interest on debt with that system. My way does away with those pesky interest payments and is thus far more sustainable.

The current arrangement is broken.

To get borrowing to work requires:
1. The would be borrower has to be willing to take on more debt and the would be lender has to be assured of credit worthiness. Us working stiffs are debt saturated which makes that a major fail.
2. Non self liquidating debt tends to hang around like unwanted belly fat. It just sits there and makes the owner unhealthy. It's only self liquidating debt that doesn't do that. Self liquidating debt = debt assumed to build some economic asset that produces more income than the debt + interest. Consumer debt never does that.
3. The Fed has no way to control where cheap interest rate money goes. From what I've seen, it goes to produce asset bubbles.

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke

Eh, cut out the middleman. I'll take the account with the Fed and bypass those damn financial intermediaries. Sure it's more akin to printing money, but us proles can really jive up spending in a much more efficient manner.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the government borrows from rich people (in your case a portion of the financial proceeds inherited from a wealthy ancestor) or borrows against (essentially liquifying those funds) a trust funds like our Social Security or our capital assets like our National Forests which creates the government funds that the fed receives a portion to loan to banks that the banks loan to businesses and people like us. Pretty hard for banks to crank up presses when banks aren't allowed to have their own federal printing presses and free access to endless federal digits and are legally bound to enter into financial agreement with the fed and borrow government funds from the fed.

Are you complaining that you are not a nation state? Well, true enough. You aren't, and have no chance of ever being one.