FOR BDS: Here's some more of that great economic news you love to hype

boards of FL wrote:Perhaps I read the wrong article.   The article that you linked to is from 2012 and speaks to the solvency of Medicare rather than the state of the current economy.

Did you paste the wrong article, Bob?

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Perhaps I read the wrong article.   The article that you linked to is from 2012 and speaks to the solvency of Medicare rather than the state of the current economy.

Did you paste the wrong article, Bob?

Nothing has changed since the 2012 Medicare Trustee report.  
The state of our current economy (which you keep hyping) is not providing the government revenues to sustain entitlement spending.   The two are most definitely interrelated.

boards of FL wrote: We have been told for years that baby boomers would be taxing on the system.   That doesn't really speak to the economy so much as it does sociology and how a large cohort such as the baby boomers moves through these federal programs.

Report by the trustees for Medicare and Social Security estimates the health insurance system for seniors will remain solvent until 2030.

The full trustees' report is available online.

Washington Post: Medicare Finances Improve Partly Due To ACA, Hospital Expenses, Trustee Report Says Medicare’s financial health is improving, according to a new official forecast that says that the program will remain solvent until 2030 — four years later than anticipated a year ago — because of the Affordable Care Act and lower-than-expected spending on hospital stays (Goldstein, 7/28).

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote: We have been told for years that baby boomers would be taxing on the system.   That doesn't really speak to the economy so much as it does sociology and how a large cohort such as the baby boomers moves through these federal programs.

"It doesn't speak to the economy so much".  lol

The entitlements (Medicare being one) were not conceived in a bubble.
They were enacted when the economy could provide the tax revenues to foot the bill for them.  Money to pay for government provided medical services DOES NOT come from government.  It comes from two sources,  government revenues,  and borrowing.
Government revenues will no longer support the level of entitlements conceived in the past.
So either we keep borrowing indefinitely to maintain these entitlements,  or we start buying what we can pay for.
That is economic reality aka basic arithmetic.  And no amount of political ideology of any kind trumps basic arithmetic.

boards of FL wrote:2030

boards of FL wrote:

You're speaking to fiscal issues, not economic issues.  We should probably raise taxes on the rich, close corporate tax loopholes that protect firms that hide profits overseas, and not repeal but increase the estate tax.   That could help cover any medicare shortfalls, and that really has nothing to do with the current state of the economy but, rather, political fiscal policy.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

You're speaking to fiscal issues, not economic issues.  We should probably raise taxes on the rich, close corporate tax loopholes that protect firms that hide profits overseas, and not repeal but increase the estate tax.   That could help cover any medicare shortfalls, and that really has nothing to do with the current state of the economy but, rather, political fiscal policy.

Those gimmicks won't even come close to solving our fiscal problems.
The ONLY way to have the same level of government services we used to have is to have the economy we once had.  And we won't.

Bob wrote:Here's another analogy.

Let's  say you're one of tens of millions of Americans who have middle class supporting union wage level jobs.  And the government revenues from that alone are giving you a middle class lifestyle and paying for your health care.
And not only that,  but the tax revenue produced by all those middle class jobs is funding the cost of your health care in retirement.

But then all of a sudden,  the United States economy has to start competing with hundreds of millions of Asian workers who are willing to work for far less than you're accustomed to.  So your middle class sustaining job is outsourced to Asia.

So of course the nation's overall economy is impacted by that and in turn so is it's fiscal situation.

Do you honestly believe that in this new economic climate,  we can sustain the same level of entitlement spending simply by increasing taxes on the rich?  
How would you define the "rich"?  How much would you increase their taxes?  And how much additional revenue do you think that will provide?
And that's even assuming that it can even be done in the current political climate which is not likely.

boards of FL wrote:  All I can say is that the term 'economy' doesn't mean what you think it means.  You're talking about fiscal policy.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:  All I can say is that the term 'economy' doesn't mean what you think it means.  You're talking about fiscal policy.

fiscal  1.  of or relating to government revenue, especially taxes.

Once again,  there can be no fiscal policy apart from a nation's economy because it's the economic engine which supplies the revenues necessary to have a fiscal policy.  Either that or or it comes from borrowing.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

You're speaking to fiscal issues, not economic issues.  We should probably raise taxes on the rich, close corporate tax loopholes that protect firms that hide profits overseas, and not repeal but increase the estate tax.   That could help cover any medicare shortfalls, and that really has nothing to do with the current state of the economy but, rather, political fiscal policy.

Those gimmicks won't even come close to solving our fiscal problems.
The ONLY way to have the same level of government services we used to have is to have the economy we once had.  And we won't.

How is it a "gimmick" to recognize the fact that we're losing tax revenue from various tax cuts that have piled up over the last several decades as well as to corporate tax shelters overseas?  What economy are you referring to when you say "is to have the economy we once had"?  Any economy we had at any point prior to today was smaller than the economy we have today, so I have absolutely no clue as to what you're even talking about there.

What do you see in this image?  




You're aware that Bush cut personal income tax three times, right?  Further, you're aware that we had a surplus prior to those tax cuts and then had a ballooning deficit shortly after those tax cuts, right?  How is it a "gimmick" to point that out and suggest that undoing all of that would go a long way in addressing our fiscal problems?  

And further, how does any of that have anything to do with the current state of the economy?  When we talk about government spending, budget deficits, and medicare solvency, do you think we're talking about the economy?  We're not.  That's called fiscal policy.  

Floridatexan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:  All I can say is that the term 'economy' doesn't mean what you think it means.  You're talking about fiscal policy.

fiscal  1.  of or relating to government revenue, especially taxes.

Once again,  there can be no fiscal policy apart from a nation's economy because it's the economic engine which supplies the revenues necessary to have a fiscal policy.  Either that or or it comes from borrowing.

Which country has the stronger economy, Bob?


Country A:

GDP = $456,897,316,564,321,987,123,456,987

Tax receipts: $1,000

Spending: $9,000

Deficit/Surplus: $8,000 deficit


Country B:

GDP: $999,999.00

Tax receipts: $1,000

Spending: $500.00

Deficit Surplus: $500.00 surplus