wmw999 2,452 #1 November 18, 2010 It's a graphic puzzle that lets you peruse the options for cutting the deficit (projected for 2015 and 2030), and seeing what the impact of each one is. Kind of like a shopping list; you get to see just how big or small the effects of some cuts are likely to be. link Have fun. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #2 November 19, 2010 I ended up with a 10 B surplus on the left and a 10B overage on the right.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #3 November 19, 2010 $909 Billion and 2.8 Trillion surpluses. Cutting "welfare", services, reducing military, and raising taxes. All without freezing wages or laying people off. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=xhtrh5rh Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #4 November 19, 2010 Hmm. Kinda weird. I increased the deficits by $37 trillion. But it guarantees everyone a Lexus, and gives us possession of Sweden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #5 November 19, 2010 QuoteAll without freezing wages or laying people off. You really think the cuts wont results in people being laid-off? I realize that how the puzzle is set up, but when you cut major spending, it will impact the workforce. If it was only that easy....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #6 November 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteAll without freezing wages or laying people off. You really think the cuts wont results in people being laid-off? I realize that how the puzzle is set up, but when you cut major spending, it will impact the workforce. If it was only that easy.... Correct. I should have said directly. People will lose their jobs but there are others available. It's well past time that the gov't stop directly subsidizing corporations through grants and other funding. A big part of the reason we're in this mess now is they won't let capitalism work itself out. Sure there are situations where the gov't should step in but that needs to limited to consistent regulations and/or tax structures not handouts and pet projects for specific groups.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #7 November 19, 2010 I say put the country up for bid at Sothby's while it still has some value.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #8 November 19, 2010 Plus 8 2015, plus 293 2030. And I tried not to select options that didn't affect me personally and push the burden to another demographic. That being said, I'm an airplane guy-not an economist so I'm sure there would be unintended and unforeseen consequences.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #9 November 19, 2010 QuotePlus 8 2015, plus 293 2030. And I tried not to select options that didn't affect me personally and push the burden to another demographic. That being said, I'm an airplane guy-not an economist so I'm sure there would be unintended and unforeseen consequences. I do like how it puts the bullshit to rest that the usual suspects try to trot out. The only way to get rid of the deficit.. is to make substantial cuts to EVERYTHING... including the 663 billion dollar Gorilla in the house and make people take responsibility for their lives or work till they drop dead at 70 years old Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 November 19, 2010 QuoteA big part of the reason we're in this mess now is they won't let capitalism work itself out. Sure there are situations where the gov't should step in but that needs to limited to consistent regulations and/or tax structures not handouts and pet projects for specific groups. a reasonable thought like that will get you called names here ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #11 November 19, 2010 QuoteA big part of the reason we're in this mess now is they won't let capitalism work itself out. Uhmm, no. You are in this mess because of unbridled and almost unrestricted capitalism. Credit default swap anybody? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 November 19, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_retirement_age QuoteRaising retirement age hurts poor By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Thu Nov 18, 6:39 pm ET WASHINGTON – Raising the retirement age for Social Security would disproportionately hurt low-income workers and minorities, and increase disability claims by older people unable to work, government auditors told Congress. The projected spike in disability claims could harm Social Security's finances because disability benefits typically are higher than early retirement payments, the Government Accountability Office concluded. The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Friday, provides fodder for those opposed to raising the eligibility age for benefits, as proposed by the leaders of President Barack Obama's deficit commission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #13 November 19, 2010 Yeah, it'll hit manual workers harder than anyone else. If you sit at a desk all day, waiting until you're 70 when you don't like your job sucks, but isn't all that bad. If you're pushing a shovel, or cleaning, or doing construction, or working some sort of heavy machinery that takes significant strength, well, then waiting until you're 70 is a whole lot less realistic. That doesn't mean that we keep it the way it is. But maybe between the ages of 60 and 70 we still call it disability, have relaxed requirements, and go ahead and up it anyway for the folks who really can realistically work. It wasn't designed to be a reward for having worked all those years. It's designed to help support you when you're too old to work. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #14 November 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteA big part of the reason we're in this mess now is they won't let capitalism work itself out. Uhmm, no. You are in this mess because of inbridled and almost unrestricted capitalism. Credit default swap anybody? The credit default swap was a direct response to banks being forced via gov't regulation and lawsuits to loan money to higher and higher risk groups under the guise of racism. They had to figure out how to make money off these high risk loans as standard higher interest rates wouldn't cover the increased forclosure rate. Additionally had the gov't not promised to back or buy these loans should they fail, you'd never have seen the NINJA and the other stuff that eventually caused the bubble to burst. When you take away risk of financial loss, even if you impose tons of regulations and requirements, the behaviors just gets riskier and riskier as unbridled greed takes over.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #15 November 19, 2010 QuoteThe credit default swap was a direct response to banks being forced via gov't regulation and lawsuits to loan money to higher and higher risk groups under the guise of racism. There are laws in the US that force people to refinance their house every year? There are laws in the US that force people to buy a house and take out a mortgage? The credit default swap was invented because housing prices could never fall. Real estate was supposed to keep going up. I would like to know which banks or people were fined or punished for not providing financing to those who could not afford it. If you could provide some information on that, it would be much appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #16 November 19, 2010 >The credit default swap was a direct response to banks being forced via >gov't regulation and lawsuits to loan money to higher and higher risk >groups under the guise of racism. The CDS market was simple greed. It was a way for banks to make a lot of money fast. >They had to figure out how to make money off these high risk loans as >standard higher interest rates wouldn't cover the increased forclosure rate. The first half of that sentence - "They had to figure out how to make money" - is exactly correct, and indeed is what capitalism is all about. The CDS market is just another bubble. There have been hundreds - in tulips, in tech stocks, in junk bonds, and in real estate. They all follow the same basic arc. These bubbles are an essential expression of capitalism; a consequence of the mechanisms that drive consumption, investment and lending. Neither government regulation nor financial freedom will prevent them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #17 November 19, 2010 QuoteThe CDS market is just another bubble. There have been hundreds - in tulips, in tech stocks, in junk bonds, and in real estate. They all follow the same basic arc. These bubbles are an essential expression of capitalism; a consequence of the mechanisms that drive consumption, investment and lending. Neither government regulation nor financial freedom will prevent them. Agreed but gov't regulation and interference can make them bigger, especially if they take away the immediate financial risks.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #18 November 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe credit default swap was a direct response to banks being forced via gov't regulation and lawsuits to loan money to higher and higher risk groups under the guise of racism. There are laws in the US that force people to refinance their house every year? There are laws in the US that force people to buy a house and take out a mortgage? The credit default swap was invented because housing prices could never fall. Real estate was supposed to keep going up. I would like to know which banks or people were fined or punished for not providing financing to those who could not afford it. If you could provide some information on that, it would be much appreciated. CRA and ACORN were big pushers of this. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=23B4098FB181400139823C22C902BDA2Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 November 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe credit default swap was a direct response to banks being forced via gov't regulation and lawsuits to loan money to higher and higher risk groups under the guise of racism. There are laws in the US that force people to refinance their house every year? There are laws in the US that force people to buy a house and take out a mortgage? The credit default swap was invented because housing prices could never fall. Real estate was supposed to keep going up. I would like to know which banks or people were fined or punished for not providing financing to those who could not afford it. If you could provide some information on that, it would be much appreciated. CRA and ACORN were big pushers of this. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=23B4098FB181400139823C22C902BDA2 While I agree with you I have to say you are wasting your breath Business = Bad Gov = Good The life of a liberal"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #20 November 19, 2010 >Agreed but gov't regulation and interference can make them >bigger, especially if they take away the immediate financial risks. Yes. They can also make them smaller by outlawing anti competitive practices and requiring financial transparency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #21 November 19, 2010 Quote>Agreed but gov't regulation and interference can make them >bigger, especially if they take away the immediate financial risks. Yes. They can also make them smaller by outlawing anti competitive practices and requiring financial transparency. Not really as those are reactionary measures only. If you outlaw one business practice a similar and most likely worse one will take it's place until that one is otlawed and the cycle starts again. If you require financial transparaency, the financials will just become more complex until the complexity is regulated, then another method will be used. It's a shell game and the gov't will always be 2-3 moves behind. I'm sure at this very moment something far more dangerous than CDS and derivatives is being thought up to counter all of the new regulations and restrictions. The best move the gov't could make is stop trying to regulate and control by law and use monetary policy instead. If a behavior is deemed risky, don't ban it or support it. Just lessen it's allure by making it less profitable by not shouldering the risks and possibly putting a tax of some sort on it.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #22 November 19, 2010 >Not really as those are reactionary measures only. If you outlaw one >business practice a similar and most likely worse one will take it's place >until that one is otlawed and the cycle starts again. The anti-trust laws have worked fairly well. Most industries have gotten more competitive rather than less competitive since they were passed. >If you require financial transparaency, the financials will just become >more complex until the complexity is regulated, then another method will >be used. While it is certainly true that they have become more complex, that doesn't really play into transparency. Laws that (for example) require banks to report what interest they are paying on your savings accounts, and that you are paying on your loans, have helped eliminate a lot of the predatory lending practices of the past. >I'm sure at this very moment something far more dangerous than CDS >and derivatives is being thought up to counter all of the new regulations >and restrictions. No doubt. Nevertheless, it was still a mistake both to deregulate them and to remove the requirements for transparency on them. It wouldn't have prevented the problem, but it would have a) made the problem a lot more apparent a lot sooner (resulting in an earlier, shallower depression) and b) allowed potential investors to better see what they were getting into. >If a behavior is deemed risky, don't ban it or support it. Just lessen it's >allure by making it less profitable by not shouldering the risks and >possibly putting a tax of some sort on it. That works as well, but works a lot better when people understand the risks - and transparency laws help that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #23 November 19, 2010 QuoteWhile I agree with you I have to say you are wasting your breath Business = Bad Gov = Good The life of a liberal You do realize we're trying to have an adult discussion here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #24 November 19, 2010 oh snap!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #25 November 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhile I agree with you I have to say you are wasting your breath Business = Bad Gov = Good The life of a liberal You do realize we're trying to have an adult discussion here? Obviously you dont"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
