, without either (a) taxing EVERYONE at MUCH higher rates or (b) bankrupting the country, like Greece.
WTF, While what you say about Medicare and Social Security is strictly true, people are drawing out a lot more in benefits than they're contributing, especially for Medicare. That's going to bankrupt the country. Democrat Congressmen don't care, they're just thinking about the next election. Obama on the other hand, I have no idea whether he's stupid or partisan or focused on the short term, but he apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about what happens after he leaves the presidency and future generations are stuck with the bills for his stupidity.
Originally Posted by Tiny
Look, I have said we all need to pay higher taxes and we need to reduce spending.
Reduce spending by two ways, cutting Defense and Cutting Medicare benifits. SS is doing fine but we need to have a conversation in this country to see if we want to continue spending on things we haven't taxed correctly or reduce spending. That means cuts in both Defense and Medicare. There is no other way.
One last thing for all you Tea Nut Greece crying fuckers. We will not in our lifetime wind up like Greece. They can not print their own money and we aren't really even doing that, though a small argument could be made that we sorta are. . I will not go into the reasons why but you show your ignorance by repeating stupid shit politicians are telling you.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...weimar/254715/
How are the United States' historic budget deficits, money-printing and depressed economy any different from the country's that have experienced hyper-inflation? The three-part answer is: (1) we don't have any problems selling our debt; (2) we aren't actually printing money; and (3) the United States is a highly productive economy that is nothing like bombed-out Budapest.
Let me unpack these one by one. Right now getting the markets to buy our debt isn't the problem. Getting enough debt for the markets to buy is the problem. Investors are so crazy to load up on Treasuries that they're actually
paying us to borrow, taking inflation into account. But while we're currently getting free money from investors, Hungary circa 1945 was getting no money. It was an investment pariah. If Hungary wanted to rebuild its economy, its only recourse was the printing press.
Second, the United States isn't really printing money. At least not like post-war Hungary. Quantitative easing is usually described as "money-printing" but it's not really. QE involves the Fed buying longer-term bonds from banks. It simply swaps one asset for another -- in this case, cash for longer-term bonds. Unlike Hungary, the Fed isn't directly paying the Treasury's bills. This is a hugely important distinction.
Whatever money the Fed "prints" is stuck in the banks. That money isn't inflationary as long as the banks don't lend it out. What if the banks do start lending at a faster clip? The Fed can still effectively pay the banks not lend by, for example, raising the interest on excess reserves or require the banks to set aside more money. It would be shocking for the Fed not to pursue one of these options.
Third, the most important difference between us and post-war Hungary or Weimar is that our roads haven't been razed to the ground and half the country isn't striking. It's very difficult to have hyperinflation when you still have a functioning economy. Almost all examples of hyperinflation result from huge economic shocks that devastate an economy so much that leaders think printing money is the only solution to growth. As bad as the Great Recession has been, our GDP is already back to and above its all-time pre-recession high. As bad as unemployment is, more than 80 percent of the labor force is working. In Zimbabwe, 80 percent of the population was unemployed.
Let's conclude with a modest proposal for an economic corollary to
Godwin's Law. The first person to reference Weimar's hyperinflation in an economic debate automatically loses.