there is too much to lose. you cant get the patient back after he is dead. better to do a balanced approach like obama has offered. if republicans would be willing to sit down and for once do whats best for the country, instead of their scorched earth relection games, all these problems can be solved. The Secret of Our Non-Success http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the-secret-of-our-non-success.html?_r=1
Today Gen. Mullen said that debt and deficits are a national security threat in next 5 years. If things go on the way they are currently, then by 2022, roughly 10% of US GDP will go to feed the debt and its related expenses. Better act now to smoothly ward off the monster or face the pain and plunder of hyperinflation. Those who think Hyperinflation will be a pin prick flu shot type deal for 3 months are mistaken.
yes Free Thinker, you are very deep. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of your ways. rebublicans are bad and democrats are good. Is there anything else I should know? Or is that enough to get me by?
True 'dat... it would take a couple of years at 20% inflation and a couple more at 100% to get the US debt down to where it needs to be. The thing is it's getting worse all the time, the debt is increasing. I'm assuming the leadership of the West will be as stupid in the future as they have been to date. Inflation will come at some point. Long Wave theory says things repeat every 43 years or something like that. The last time we had inflation was about 1980 or so, so early '20's could be about the time for it. I guess that as long as there are buyers for Treasuries we are ok? That seems a little oversimplified...
This is why the upcoming election is so crucial. If Romney gets in with a republican congress, we have a fighting chance. He can start the process of cutting government back to what we can afford. If Obama somehow is reelected, we have lost the country as we knew it. We know for example that the ePA has deferred radical anti-energy regulations until after the election. Once Obama is safely back in, they will go full tilt on them and pretty much destroy the economy and our standard of living. To save the planet of course, so any price is worth paying. Obama's so-called balanced approach to the budget crisis is really just more massive tax increases and more spending, with promised future cuts thrown in to fool people. If we can't make cuts today, who is dumb enough to believe they will magically materialize years down the road when spending is even more out of control? It's not like the democrats didn't run this scam several times before. How can you possibly justify cutting medicare for example, yet not axing the absurd subsidies for thing slike public broadcasting? Other than to force progrssive idiocy on local school boards, why do we need a Department of Education? Have educational results improved or gone down since it was established? Do we really need massive diversity bureaucracies in every single federal agency? What essential functions do the Departments of Labor, Commerce, HUD and Energy do they can't returned to one or two other departments? Or better yet, axed altogether? Or would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare, which while misguided actually do help people? Obama's answer is to raise taxes and demonize the so-called rich, who are actually the upper middle class. If that were a viable approach, Detroit would be a model city and California and Illinois would have rock solid finances.
is there something in your brain that keeps you from understanding that every expert who has looked at romneys plan has said it will explode the debt? EXCLUSIVE: Romney's Plan Will Balloon The Deficit And Radically Increase The National Debt We have analyzed the likely impact of Mitt Romney's economic plan on the country's national debt and deficit. Our analysis suggests that the Romney Plan will radically increase America's debt and deficits over the next 10 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-romney-plan-will-affect-debt-2012-9?op=1
I've been coming around to the conclusion that the endgame is going to be something like the owners of the robots being forced to provide a guaranteed annual income to the masses of labor-sellers who can't sell their labor in a world where robots are massively more capable than the average worker. The alternative is going to be 50% unemployment rates. 50% of people will still lack work, but they will not lack income, at least at some minimal level. Although I am in principle against this, the dynamics of modern society do seem to favor this outcome. However, I think that capital owners, i.e. the people who own all the robots, will push back and demand some concessions in return for providing this income. I think that one of the biggest concessions they will demand is that if you are taking the income, you can't reproduce or you will get additional income for not reproducing, which will be the opposite of what used to happen under the old welfare entitlement. Fortunately, the experience learning from that can be applied to designing any new system. Put simply, there isn't enough work to go around, at least not at the skill levels that exist among large segments of the population. If you've got an IQ less than 120, you will, from this day forward, be under constant pressure from robots replacing your labor with their capital. People with 150 IQs in robotics labs are designing a world where people with lower IQs than that are basically unnecessary.