EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:26 am

There weren't any "deficit hawks" in the 50's and early 60's, Kennedy included, or at least they were not defined as such.


Yeah, I might be conflating his tax policies/proposals/attitudes with that of deficit spending. You're right that there were no hard choices to be made back then and they cared little about deficits.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:20 am

idhawkman wrote:You're right, we don't know where his politics "would have" gone. All we know is where he was. That's the only thing to base an answer on. I "could" equally make the assertion (as I did above) that he switched parties. He "could" have become more conservative after witnessing the effects of his tax cuts. There's all kinds of woulds, shoulds, and coulds but there are only one set of facts.


Except that your assertion would have required JFK to leave behind two brothers and his father, all members of the Democratic party, and the lion's share of the extensive campaign network, contacts, and party insiders that he and his family had built over the past 5 decades. Additionally, in the over 200 years that the country has been electing Presidents, not a single sitting or former President has ever changed parties (with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who didn't really change parties, he formed a 3rd when he unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination in 1912).

You're right, no one knows what would have happened had JFK survived. But the scenario you are proposing requires a monumental, unprecedented change in the status quo. Mine doesn't.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:36 am

burrrton wrote:Yeah, I might be conflating his tax policies/proposals/attitudes with that of deficit spending. You're right that there were no hard choices to be made back then and they cared little about deficits.


That's because there were no deficits. In 1960, the total government outlays were $530 billion, total receipts $531 billion, and that's without Social Security being on the books.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/62/1960

Thanks for listening to reason. It's not often that one of us in here concedes.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:31 pm

RiverDog wrote:That's because there were no deficits. In 1960, the total government outlays were $530 billion, total receipts $531 billion, and that's without Social Security being on the books.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/62/1960

Thanks for listening to reason. It's not often that one of us in here concedes.


As far as I recall, the large deficits started during the Reagan Era in the 80s. Now it's reached an out of control, insane state no one wants to fix because of how difficult that would be. I think we'll go bankrupt first while the politicians keep spending money we don't have and the Republicans keep cutting taxes we can't afford to give up.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:07 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as I recall, the large deficits started during the Reagan Era in the 80s. Now it's reached an out of control, insane state no one wants to fix because of how difficult that would be. I think we'll go bankrupt first while the politicians keep spending money we don't have and the Republicans keep cutting taxes we can't afford to give up.


The birth of the large federal budget deficits occurred under Johnson with his "Great Society", which among many other things, gave us two very expensive entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicade, along with an insufficient means to support them. Additionally, he was pumping out legislation and creating entire departments before they even had a mission. By the time Reagan took office, the combination of an aging population, exploding medical costs, and the Vietnam War had put a huge drain on government expenditures, put a whole lot of returning soldiers in the VA that otherwise wouldn't have been there, and so forth. By the time Reagan came to town, the entitlement monster had grown to include over 80% of federal spending, and with his wanting to expand the defense budget, which during the height of the cold war was a necessary evil, he didn't come close to even submitting a balanced budget.

The other thing that Johnson did was to put Social Security "on budget", meaning that it's revenues and expenditures counted towards calculating the deficit, and since that self sustaining program in 1968 took in way more money than it paid out, made LBJ's overall budget look healthier that it actually was even though they still reported a deficit even after including SS.

Bottom line is that you can't simply point to the year that the budget deficit started rising and blame who ever was sitting in the Oval Office at the time. You have to take a look at the root case of the deficit, when did the programs causing it begin.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:56 am

RiverDog wrote:The birth of the large federal budget deficits occurred under Johnson with his "Great Society", which among many other things, gave us two very expensive entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicade, along with an insufficient means to support them. Additionally, he was pumping out legislation and creating entire departments before they even had a mission. By the time Reagan took office, the combination of an aging population, exploding medical costs, and the Vietnam War had put a huge drain on government expenditures, put a whole lot of returning soldiers in the VA that otherwise wouldn't have been there, and so forth. By the time Reagan came to town, the entitlement monster had grown to include over 80% of federal spending, and with his wanting to expand the defense budget, which during the height of the cold war was a necessary evil, he didn't come close to even submitting a balanced budget.

The other thing that Johnson did was to put Social Security "on budget", meaning that it's revenues and expenditures counted towards calculating the deficit, and since that self sustaining program in 1968 took in way more money than it paid out, made LBJ's overall budget look healthier that it actually was even though they still reported a deficit even after including SS.

Bottom line is that you can't simply point to the year that the budget deficit started rising and blame who ever was sitting in the Oval Office at the time. You have to take a look at the root case of the deficit, when did the programs causing it begin.


I know presidents should neither get blame nor credit for many things that occur during their administrations. This is an concurrent government constantly in motion.

The model for medicare/medicaid and social security relied on population growth that did not continue. That's why I don't support things like Obamacare or most government programs. Their tax modeling system is almost entirely based on linear growth population and economic models that rarely materialize over the long-term anywhere in the the world.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:19 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:I know presidents should neither get blame nor credit for many things that occur during their administrations. This is an concurrent government constantly in motion.

The model for medicare/medicaid and social security relied on population growth that did not continue. That's why I don't support things like Obamacare or most government programs. Their tax modeling system is almost entirely based on linear growth population and economic models that rarely materialize over the long-term anywhere in the the world.


I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second.

The problem with the SS/Medicare model isn't population growth or the lack of it. The problem with it is that they did not anticipate the increases in life expectancy and a subsequent lowering of the ratio of those paying into the system vs. those taking out of it. That's why I was against Obamacare, because the government typically does a very poor job of providing for sustainability in the programs they start.

Medicade is a different monster. It's based on need, not on age.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:54 pm

RiverDog wrote:I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second.

The problem with the SS/Medicare model isn't population growth or the lack of it. The problem with it is that they did not anticipate the increases in life expectancy and a subsequent lowering of the ratio of those paying into the system vs. those taking out of it. That's why I was against Obamacare, because the government typically does a very poor job of providing for sustainability in the programs they start.

Medicade is a different monster. It's based on need, not on age.


Once again we'll disagree. And this statement subsequent lowering of the ratio of those paying into the system vs. those taking out of it. Why do you think that occurred?

If the life expectancy were the biggest factor, that is easily fixed by raising the age you obtain social security. It isn't. The biggest factor is the statement I highlighted and you made. That is due to people having far fewer children than back when social security was created. The population modeling was bad. They didn't foresee people moving from big families to much smaller families. Less children moving into the workforce means less folks paying in and more eventually taking out.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:49 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Once again we'll disagree. And this statement subsequent lowering of the ratio of those paying into the system vs. those taking out of it. Why do you think that occurred?

If the life expectancy were the biggest factor, that is easily fixed by raising the age you obtain social security. It isn't. The biggest factor is the statement I highlighted and you made. That is due to people having far fewer children than back when social security was created. The population modeling was bad. They didn't foresee people moving from big families to much smaller families. Less children moving into the workforce means less folks paying in and more eventually taking out.


They already have raised the minimum age for SS, from 65 to 66. That helped some, but it didn't fix it. I fully expect them to raise it again in a few years.

People were not having far fewer children in the 30's when SS was created. Take a look at the chart included in this link:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/ ... mmigrants/

The major reason the ratio of worker to retiree has been shrinking is due to the baby boomers, those of us born between 1946 and 1960, started hitting retirement age a decade ago.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:28 pm

RiverDog wrote:They already have raised the minimum age for SS, from 65 to 66. That helped some, but it didn't fix it. I fully expect them to raise it again in a few years.

People were not having far fewer children in the 30's when SS was created. Take a look at the chart included in this link:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/ ... mmigrants/


What are you talking about? You're literally proving my point. People have been having fewer children from when social security was created. The population model social security was created on was built with the idea of a steady birthrate that did not hold true.

the major reason the ratio of worker to retiree has been shrinking is due to the baby boomers, those of us born between 1946 and 1960, started hitting retirement age a decade ago.


And if Baby Boomers had had as many children as their grandparents, we wouldn't have this problem because our population would have grown at a rate sufficient to maintain pay ins greater than pay outs. They built social security off a bad population model. Same as most government programs are built. Birth rates did not stay steady for a variety of reasons.

To make the math simple, if you build a model thinking that the two person will have 4 children, but they only end up having 2, you have a serious problem. That is what they did. You're literally posting examples that support exactly what I'm talking about. I don't even have to go find the evidence myself because you're posting it.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:39 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:And if Baby Boomers had had as many children as their grandparents, we wouldn't have this problem because our population would have grown at a rate sufficient to maintain pay ins greater than pay outs. They built social security off a bad population model. Same as most government programs are built. Birth rates did not stay steady for a variety of reasons.

To make the math simple, if you build a model thinking that the two person will have 4 children, but they only end up having 2, you have a serious problem. That is what they did. You're literally posting examples that support exactly what I'm talking about. I don't even have to go find the evidence myself because you're posting it.


You're not taking into account two very large factors: Immigration and gender. Immigrants are generally younger than the average worker and have been entering the workforce just as those children of the baby boomers have. Additionally, many, many more women are working nowadays than there was when SS was created.

Consequently, total employment in the United States has risen from 32 million in 1940 to 147 million today, a 360% increase, while total population has gone from 132 million to 326 million, just a 146% increase, or less than half of what total employment has done.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

There's also a third factor that you're not taking into account: The tax rate. When SS was first created, workers paid just 1/2 of 1% of their paychecks into Social Security. Now it's at 6.2%.

So the bottom line is that there is a disproportionately larger number of people paying into the system and they are paying far more than their grandfathers and great grandfathers did. It's clear that the problem isn't so much that there aren't enough people working and paying into the system as it is there are so many more people, living longer than their ancestors, taking out of it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests