Occupy Wall Street

Obama is a centrist?! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Absolutely. With a right ward tilt. Why did enrich the insurance industry with his health care plan rather than go after the real problem and get insurance out of health care financing and go to single payer? Why did he not have a sufficiently large stimulus like Stiglitz, Krugman, Roemer and others told him to do? Why did he do nothing about too big to fail and pass helplessly weak financial regulation?

He's a corporatist centrist through and through.

Hmmm . . . I will have to ponder that one. Corporatist, he definitely is that.

... and assume a 2 percent real interest rate. Originally Posted by WTF

Thank you. You, again, make my point.

I would expect that even the most biased posting on this board would balk at an investor providing a work-life return of 2% on the contributions made to an investment fund over the past 50 years, particularly when interest rates recieved by the fund have not seen 2% in that 50 years benefits.

You are worse at cooking the books than Obaminable's "job program."

Using the same rate of contribution as SS and Medicare over a 45 year work career at a 5% annual averge growth, with an increase in income factored in, the "fund" upon retirement would be in excess of $2.5 million. Even at 2% return without touching the fund, a retirees annual gross retirrment would be $50,000 a year .... not even close to SS.

You are the best argument for privatizing SS than anyone could dream.

Even if the retiree made 0% return on the existing fund at retirement with a life expectancy of 15 years at retirement, if the retiree drew down $50,000 gross a year there would still be over $1.5 million left if the retiree died as expected .... for the retirees family .... something that is not available with SS ... in "death benefits."

Why did enrich the insurance industry with his health care plan rather than go after the real problem and get insurance out of health care financing and go to single payer? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Because he figured he didn't have the votes to get it through. A number of "blue dog" Democrats were not on board, since they represented relatively conservative or moderate states and, like all politicians, wanted to be re-elected. So instead, he signed legislation that does nothing about cost control, since the only real goal was a political "victory."

Why did he do nothing about too big to fail and pass helplessly weak financial regulation? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Because Democrats, as well as Republicans, get plenty of campaign cash from Big Finance. And he let congress craft the bill with virtually no input. So it should come as a surprise to no one that it's relatively big-bank-friendly. When Jamie Dimon goes to bat against Geithner and a bunch of Treasury errand boys, who do you think is going to win that one? Smaller banks got fucked, and TBTF lives to fight another day.

Why did he not have a sufficiently large stimulus like Stiglitz, Krugman, Roemer and others told him to do? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not sufficiently large? Are you kidding?

The $860 billion "stimulus package" of 2009 was by far the biggest we've ever tried. If you look at how it was spent, the fact that it essentially failed should surprise no one. Do you think doubling down on failure is smart policy?

If you want to examine one of the key reasons why it did not work, take a look at this commentary by Tom Geoghegan:

http://news.yahoo.com/keynes-221201285.html

The author is a labor lawyer and rather far to the left politically. He is obviously not opposed to high levels of government spending, but does a good job of explaining why, in our present set of circumstances, it is not working.

This is one of the structural economic problems I alluded to in another thread.

It's a sad state of affairs when labor lawyers writing for The Nation can understand and articulate concerns related to this issue better than prominent academic economists. Of course, people like Krugman still hang out in a world of 1960s-era macro models that clearly do not work in practice and should have been considered discredited long ago.

Also see this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=308965

Note particularly post numbers 15 and 22.

He's a corporatist centrist through and through. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't doubt that Obama's sentiments are solidly left. He's just doing what he thinks he needs to do to survive politically. He'll try to pivot from time to time between the base and the big broad center. That's a difficult dance that will require some political agility.

But in his heart, Obama is certainly not a "centrist."

Thank you. You, again, make my point.

I would expect that even the most biased posting on this board would balk at an investor providing a work-life return of 2% on the contributions made to an investment fund over the past 50 years, particularly when interest rates recieved by the fund have not seen 2% in that 50 years benefits.

You are worse at cooking the books than Obaminable's "job program."

." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who do you think paid that 2% interest rate?

You could make it 10% it you want. It is just an accounting move that robs Peter to pay Paul.

What you are to dense to understand is that had the government paid 10% SS would really look good but the budget defuicit would be even larger.

Taking the surplus from SS just made it where the deficit did not look so bad to those that did not look very close. The majority of the deficit is made up from Defense spending. They have been able to keep taxes low by taking this surplus from SS and paying this low rate.

What you do not understand is that while SS needs tweaking, the whole process needs a redo.

We need to understand just how much we pay for Defense and either pay it or do something different. This recession combined with the SS surplus coming to an end is just making folks look at it sooner than they would have liked.

The three biggest items that we spend on are Defense, SS & MC. SS and MC have run surpluses for decades. Guess where that leaves Defense?

I am always shocked that bright people can not seem to understand the simple math problem that we have.

Guess where that leaves Defense? Originally Posted by WTF

It remains an original, constitutionally-imposed responsibility of the U.S. government. After all, where would your scientific R & D budget be without the soldiers, sailors and marines -- the subjects for whom the research is conducted?

Defense spending should definitely be scaled back in the USA, but apparently it is not so easy to buck the entrenched apparatus intent on sucking up the money.

I think it was first President Dwight Eisenhower who warned the nation about the dangers of the "Military-industrial complex", but the menace has only increased since then.

It takes a immensely strong President to resist such a established Juggernaut as the defense industry.

. . . After all, fighting is what they know how to do best!

Defense spending should definitely be scaled back in the USA, but apparently it is not so easy to buck the entrenched apparatus intent on sucking up the money. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

If "The Anointed One" didn't have the Department of Defense at his disposal, how could he distract the masses from his lack of domestic accomplishments?

I think it was first President Dwight Eisenhower who warned the nation about the dangers of the "Military-industrial complex", but the menace has only increased since then. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Eisenhower is often only partially quoted by liberals on this board. What he said (note the statements in bold) was:

IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

• and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

It takes a immensely strong President to resist such a established Juggernaut as the defense industry. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

See first statement above.

. . . After all, fighting is what they know how to do best! Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Hence: "Top Dog!"

It remains an original, constitutionally-imposed responsibility of the U.S. government. After all, where would your scientific R & D budget be without the soldiers, sailors and marines -- the subjects for whom the research is conducted? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

really. In the constitution it says we can spend more than we tax? All in the name of defense. Very liberal thinking there I b

really. In the constitution it says we can spend more than we tax? All in the name of defense. Very liberal thinking there I b Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, if you do the math, defense spending alone is not what is busting the budget.

Any idiot that does not take ike's speech as a warning to a bloated defense industry is indeed an idiot

Any idiot that does not take ike's speech as a warning to a bloated defense industry is indeed an idiot Originally Posted by WTF

Any idiot who thinks Ike said the U.S. needs to abolish the military industrial complex is an idiot.

Any idiot who thinks Ike said the U.S. needs to abolish the military industrial complex is an idiot. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have never said nor thought that...we do need to get smarter in how we spend our dollars.

Actually, if you do the math, defense spending alone is not what is busting the budget. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nobody said 'alone'.

It is the biggest item besides SS &MC by far.

SS & MC ran a surplus for decades.

So the biggest item other than those two would appear to any reasonable person who can sift through the double dealing accounting tricks would know that Defense is busting the budget. Medical spending is fast catching up but tell the old fuc'ers who did not fund it near enough that they need to make cuts to their end of life care and watch them scream bloody murder.

You wanna know the real cost of military spending , go here.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

The sad fact remains that it is easy for Republicans like Mitt Romney to play political games and insist that defense spending cannot be cut.

If President Obama insists that defense spending should be trimmed back then his opponents jump on him claiming he is weak on defense.

. . . Defense spending is a bloated beast that nevertheless many are happy to continue to over-feed simply to win the election and disregard the financial well-being of the country.