Home / Daily Journal (Opinion) /

No, Not Again, NO MORE!

By on January 3, 2013 5:24 pm / 10 comments

 

scrmIt is official, the GOP and the media are going after Medicare and Social Security.  Yesterday Scott Horsley (NPR) said that “Entitlements” are the primary drivers of the deficit.”  Today, on the Diane Rheem Show, I made the point that entitlements are NOT line items in the budget and since the deficit is the product of budget spending less tax revenue, there is no way that Medicare and Social Security can contribute to the deficit.  At that point, I was cut off and Diane’s guest lied emphatically that they are in the budget and will destroy this country.  The guest stated again that it is UNFAIR to ask young people to support old people and that they should be free to invest their own money in their own retirement.  We all know how well that works.  Prior to Social Security, eleven percent of all seniors were living in abject poverty.  Again, they pit us against each other when they are the real enemy.

We do NOT have a deficit crisis; We have a jobs crisis.  More importantly, cutting benefits to Seniors decreases tax revenue which further increases the deficit, as do most spending cuts. Our deficit, as I said above, is the product of spending over revenue.  If everything else was equal, one could cut the deficit through spending cuts.  However, all things are not equal and they are certainly NOT static.  Spending cuts are actually public sector job cuts, because the spending is on people. What we need to do is put people back to work.   Revenue goes up and the deficit goes down.

On the issue of the debt ceiling, this would be just silly, were it not for the fact that it involves the “Full faith and Credit” of the United States.  The time to control the debt ceiling is when you pass the budget.    The “debt ceiling” does not decide, as you would think, how much money we intend to spend.  No, it authorizes Congress to pay the bills for money we have already spent.  If Congress jacks us around on this then the interest rate on our credit cards goes up and our deficit gets that much bigger.

So, cut the crap.  Leave entitlements alone; Stop worrying about deficit right now and start focusing on putting people back to work.   If they do not like the part about people getting a tax refund for not earning enough money to survive, then GET THEM A DECENT JOB.  They must end this war against the old and the young, the poor and the middle class, or they might get more fight than they anticipate.  No more attempting to pit the young against the old, to scrabble over the crumbs. “No more!” I say.

Print Friendly
 
scrm

Share this Post

 

Related Posts

About the author

 
  • DaveinKC

    You cut the crap, you ignorant scumbag. Keep taxing the minority in this country who can afford more and watch more and more jobs dry up. The USA has to pay those entitlements, the government guarantees the liability of the trust funds….basically your argument is full of holes because the shortfall does come out of the same budget whether you want to argue about semantics of “in” or “on” or whatever. Just like your buddy Bill Clinton that wanted to debate the word “is”. What you don’t get is that the USA backstops those liabilities and has to pay when the trust funds can’t….you are killing our children so that you can have a $10,000 MRI when you twist your little knee.

    • steven sanders

      I find it ironic that you call him an “ignorant scumbag” in that people who call others names in a debate so clearly show their ignorance. Children aren’t dying because of unnecessary medical treatment. They’re dying because of our ‘for profit’ healthcare industry. Basic economics tell us a ‘for profit’ system will never produce enough for all. But perhaps you haven’t studied economics…

      • A conservative PhD in economic

        I think it is you, Steven, who fails to understand economics. A profit motive is what encourages innovation, growth, and excellence….by nature, for profit systems are more productive than alternatives. The problems with our health care system are too massive to detail here, but the fundamental issue is not profit, but a system in which providers and consumers are disintermediated by payors. Make individuals more responsible for their own healthcare choices/spending–be it via the free market, via government paid vouchers, or any other system you chose, but NOT by removing the profit element–and every economist will tell you the system would be more efficient, more productive, less expensive, and with better outcomes. Blaming “for profit” is just a rant without any evidence behind it. But thanks for playing.

        • steven sanders

          “every economist will tell you the system would be more efficient, more productive, less expensive, and with better outcomes.”

          If you are a PHD in economics then you know this is false. What you state is highly debated between different schools of economics. Therefore, you are showing either deception or ignorance. Unfortunately there are many who get funding by ignoring the evidence and proclaiming the same old, tired dogma in defense of the ruling classes Ann Rand, social-Darwinist, sociopathic robber baron philosophy. Profit motive, or avarice is not how most things are accomplished. Most scientists, engineers, actual people who create and build get a fixed pay rate. The “profit” goes to those who do nothing but control the “capital”. This parasitic system is what is economically destroying us, as it did prior civilizations. If you have studied the medical systems used by other countries who have more efficient, less expensive and superior health-care you would know some use pure socialist systems. Others such as Germany allow competition, but require all company’s to be non-profit. Competition without profit works better than for profit. But not as well as the leading socialist systems.

          You should also know that “free-market” is just a buzz-word for corporate monopolies. Economics has proven that any market in which five or fewer companies control half or more of the market operates as a monopoly market. We do not have a competitive system in the U.S., because capital is monopolized by The Federal Reserve, and large corporations monopolize most products sold. If you wanted a working competitive system, you would have to end the Federal Reserve and break up large corporations until there was a true competitive market. This would require more, not less regulation. You would need to support a small business oriented economy. The opposite of what we have. We would still need a safety-net because as I pointed out before, economics has proven that when pricing a product, the highest return is gained by pricing above the ability of some to purchase it. Thus any pure competitive system will never produce enough for all over the long term.

          The Jewish people originally had an agricultural system. Value produced was all measured in agricultural goods. This is why the old testament required that ten percent of all food be given to the poor. This was necessary even after forbidding usury, and having periodic Jubilee years to keep people from being destroyed by debtors. They had obviously seen other societies destroyed by the debt economy we are using today. Even so a safety net was necessary. By Christs time, as the society had progressed beyond pure agriculture, they continued the principle of the law by requiring ten percent of everything produced be given to the poor. (Note that they were able to discern that it was the principle of the law, not the letter of the law that mattered.) Christianity spread because Christians gave so much more than required, that even their enemies had to admit they were loving. The successful Christian economy described in the New Testament was not a for profit system.
          Christ said that the love of money, that is avarice, or the profit philosophy, was the root of all evil. I don’t believe you will find any wise spiritual teachers who suggest that avarice will lead to anything but evil and destruction.

          “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” Galbraith

          I have been happy to give you a little lessen in the theory, philosophy and science of economics. If you are interested I suggest you read more on your own. Or you can continue to adhere to the dogma of the robber barons. Your choice.

          • O Canada

            First, moron, learn how to spell “lesson” (not lessen, you idiot).
            Second, learn English grammar. It’s “companies” not “company’s” and “Christ’s” not “Christs”. You dumb born-again fuck-tard.
            Third, if you are such a Jesus loving Christian, explain to me the Catholic Church,by whom more death and destruction has been wrought over the last 2000 years than any other organization. Are you really naieve enough to believe that the Church has gotten its wealth from “charity” or will you accept the reality of an organization of child molesters who have killed and robbed others all over the world for their own enrchment under the false pretense of some higher calling?
            Fourth, you assert the inferiority of capitalism as an economic system. Please cite for me the innovations and advancements of communist/socialist or any other economic system over the last 200 years. Prove your assertion that those systems could have better advanced human well-being better than has the power of capitalism over that time. Do you really beleieve that the industrial revolution, the lowest levels of poverty in recorded history, abundant food, technological advancements available to everyone, democratization of information, etc. would have occured without capitalism? If so, please give me some of what you are smoking.

            Lastly, if you are such a critic of capitalism, please move somewhere else. Go enjoy you free health care in Germany.
            I’m with EconPhD, Steven….you’re a dumbass. He was just too polite to say it.

            • steven sanders

              You believe catching spelling errors makes you superior. You haven’t the intelligence to refrain from name calling in an intellectual debate. You assume that using the Bible as an example and quoting Christ means I’m a “born again” Christian. Your belief that Christ founded the Catholic Church and that it is based on his teachings shows ignorance of history. You overlook the fact that the world has more poverty today than ever before caused by the few rich capitalist nations economic parasitism. And you end with the tired old “love it or leave it” whimper of the neo-liberals. I couldn’t be more underwhelmed.

              • O Canda

                I don’t particularly care one way or another if I’m superior. It is your arguments that are inferior and unfounded. And yes, the inability to use proper spelling or grammar demonstrates a fundamental lack of intelligence that you seem to embrace, as is typical of the new generation of “do nothings/want everythings”. I can and will avoid the overwhelming temptation to employ name calling to underscore my points if you prefer, it makes little difference. Your assertion that the “world has more poverty today than ever before” is factually inaccurate and I challenge you to demonstrate it based upon any standard of living you choose. Your religious beliefs are of no concern to me, but they further underscore the weakness of your arguments and the fallacies of your claims. I will repeat my two challenges to you, to (1) cite for me the innovations and advancements of communist/socialist or
                any other economic system over the last 200 years. Prove your assertion
                that those systems could have better advanced human well-being better
                than has the power of capitalism over that time; and now (2) to demonstrate that the world has more poverty today than ever before. If you would like to have an “intellectual debate”, answer either one or both of those challenges or else GTFO.

                • steven sanders

                  Please prove that spelling and grammar has a direct correlation to conceptual intelligence. (1) Please prove the premise of your question: that economic systems are solely responsible for innovation and advancement for human well-being. Then prove that the present system, banker-indebtedness based monopolistic corporatism, is responsible for all innovation and advancement of human well-being in the last two hundred years. If you cannot, then your question is baseless. (2) People who are starving to death are poor. There have been more people starving in the last half century then ever before. Hence more poverty then ever before. In the past starvation came from famine largely caused by weather. In the last century and a half we have been in a weather ‘Eden’ in which crop failure is unusual. Unlike the past, starvation today is caused, as agribusiness corporations tell us, by the distribution system. They are the distribution system. When there is more than enough food to feed all, but millions starve, we can presume these millions can be considered poor. When the economic system which exists for the purpose of distributing goods cannot distribute a basic commodity such as food successfully than one should not consider that economic system adequate. How many ways do I need to spell it out for you?

                  One more thing. As you despise socialism so much, please feel free to avoid those benefits to society that come from socialism. Avoid driving on our socialist built roads and freeways. If your home burns don’t call our socialist fire department. if your home is invaded do not call our socialist police department. When you shop, avoid our socialist tested foods and buy diseased products. Buy untested medicine from snake oil merchants. In the past countries often used mercenaries instead of our current socialist military system. Should we be attacked you are free to hire your own army and avoid using our socialist one. I’ll be interested in how you fare in your social-Darwinist world. Please do keep us apprised.

                • O Canada

                  The more you write, the more you demonstrate the (uniquely American) combination of arrogance and ignorance that I love so much. Let’s try once again to set you straight…..

                  1. I don’t need to “prove the premise of my question” as that IS the question….I challenge you to produce a list of innovation and/or advancement under non-capitalistic economic systems that is greater than the list a 3rd grader could produce….the scoreboard of human advancement and well-being clearly shows capitalism killing all other systems, including those you champoin. Just because you don’t like my questions, can’t answer my question, or don’t like the answer you come up with does not mean that I have to prove the premise of my otherwise completely valid question.

                  2. Just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. The FACTS (and I encourage everyone, including people like you who might not even be smart enough to use a computer, to research and see the data for themselves) are that global starvation rates per capita are down dramatically in the last 40 years (from over 35% to under 17% in the developing world) even while the caloric rates at which terms like “hunger” and “starvation” are defined and estimated have risen. Without at all denying the existence of a hunger problem for 800 MM+ people on this planet, anyone who fails to agree that human beings as a whole are healthier and more prosperous than at any other point in history is so extremist as to be rightly ignored.
                  3. We don’t live in a socialist system, dumbass. Our capitalist economy provides a means, via taxes, whereby common goods like roads, fire departments, food testing, and national defence are provided for all. The system works just fine without the need for the inefficiencies inherent in socialism. By the way, I love socialism for the same reason that I love the existence of idiots like you….your presence (in a Darwinist world as you put it, for that is what the world is even if you don’t like it) creates the inefficiences, poor decisions, and other errors in others that I can exploit in my capitalist way to care for myself, my friends, and my family. So, thank you.
                  4. PS, in case you thought I forgot, I wasn’t making a commentary on conceptual intelligence. Just observing that you are clearly not smart enough to use proper spelling or grammar.
                  Have a nice day.

  • Ken’s Mom

    The only crisis I see Ken is that you’re 64 years old and you still wet your bed…..