Do you think it would be wrong if the government took money out of your paycheck for Unemployment Insurance, and once you needed it because you were laid off, you couldn't obtain the funds at all?











How is that any different than what is going to occur with Social Security and Medicare? We all know we youngins are contributing to these pools, and we will most likely not benefit when we need it a quarter to half century from now.

The option to take this tax money (or atleast our portion of this tax money) into our own hands and exchange it for a guarantee of no coverage once we retire should be on the table. Atleast that way, we'd know the money would be or would not be there, and it would be our responsibility if we want it. Everyone else can keep things as they are if they wish. Atleast that way, we'd stop this 'pass the buck onto the next generation (or next administration)" mentality.


Because even if the money "is there" for us, it will be because they most likely "borrowed" against a future generation.... f'ing them in the ass instead of us. This is a mess waiting to happen and our government, Republican and Democrat, keep acting as if they can just keep on spending. See, Obama's news release on the budget and budget cuts today... for an example.

The government does that all the time. All that has to happen is the company you worked for tells them, "no they don't deserve it," and you don't get a cent of unemployment.








I thought that was how it always went - the current population paying the SS for the previous. It's not like a savings account where a set dollar figure gets put away in regards to what you pay in, and when it's empty you're done getting ss payments. Which is why you can still recieve it if you live to be 110, and why you can recieve it if you're unable to work at 25.

I could be wrong.

Just sayin.

But his argument is much easier to understand for people who have never really thought about it before.

Fyi, the current deficit still isn't approaching what it was right after WWII.

And you know, they solved that deficit by lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting social programs!

out of curiosity, did the government increase or decrease spending post-WWII?

what's with the spacing?

I'm pretty sure the DEFICIT is the highest it's ever been. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that's why we keep seeing 'record breaking deficits' in most news columns. I think you may be referring to something else, maybe debt as a percentage of GDP.

Anyways, deficits don't tell the story debt does because deficits are not the bottom line. Debt is. Currently, our debt is $11,234,616,217,805.70. That debt is $36,697 per person.

And the debt story doens't really highlight all the problems with funding Social Security and Medicare. There's a number of other issues there... like funding larger populations with smaller populations. That's the problem with welfare programs. Baby-boomers are eventually going to retire, there's not enough younger folks to support the system.

I don't know. Dramatic effect? haa ha... didn't work did it?

correct. the DEFICIT in nominal terms is the highest it has ever been. the DEFICIT, as a percentage of GDP, is not. it was about 21.5% of GDP in 1945, compared to 12.3% for the current fiscal year.

Spoiler: show

why did you capitalize DEFICIT?

you're correct. and the tea party thread is a few doors down, friend.

And ramping up spending and liabilities!

There was a sharp drop right after WWII (corresponding with a pretty bad recession, btw), and since then it has been rising steadily. Well, had been rising steadily until the GWB years.

Debt can't be the bottom line. The phrase "the bottom line" refers to net income. Debts are only one side of that equation.

as the chart shows, spending always falls post-war because spending during the war is so excessive. it would only stand to reason that the adjustment from a war economy to a non-war economy would produce a recession, as it takes time for resources to adjust and be reallocated.

looking at your chart, it appears that spending (as a % of GDP) fell under clinton (methinks because GDP was much more robust, not because spending levels fell), and that bush, particularly given his tax cuts, spent much more than clinton.


+1

I agree with all of this. Also I want to point out that spending during FDR's terms (until the war) was in fact lower than it had been under Hoover. The sharp fall to around 20% probably corresponds with the very beginning of his first term, during which time he slashed veterans benefits and other programs. People forget that he ran on a platform of a balanced budget and less government spending.

nominally? or as a % of GDP?

As a percentage of GDP.

Well, they certainly decreased MILITARY spending, especially the kind of spending on "non-durable goods", like bombs.

The email came that way, he just cut-and-pasted it.