Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#21

Post by legerdemain »

jfengel wrote: post #18
socalnate1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy cow, this is the worst list I've ever seen. These are (almost) all things I treasure and I would hate to see abandoned to the wolves. Are you seriously suggesting libraries as wasteful programs and that Pharma companies run drug rehab programs! I can't tell if this is a troll comment or not. In case it is not just trolling, I suggest you read about the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traged…

It's really tempting to apply Poe's Law when they propose to let the market decide which national parks are "worth it". It reads an awful lot like a list of "things that other people need but I don't". It's also a weird mishmash of things that aren't federal and things whose total expenditure is such a tiny percentage of tax dollars that you could zero them out while making a rounding error in your paycheck. Things t…

I didn't include those things because they're either unsolvable (defense spending is an arms race), or the solution is obvious and inevitable. For example, we can save Social Security by phasing out old people.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#22

Post by AnimalMuppet »

legerdemain wrote: post #21
jfengel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really tempting to apply Poe's Law when they propose to let the market decide which national parks are "worth it". It reads an awful lot like a list of "things that other people need but I don't". It's also a weird mishmash of things that aren't federal and things whose total expenditure is such a tiny percentage of tax dollars that you could zero them out while making a rounding error in your paycheck. Things t…

I didn't include those things because they're either unsolvable (defense spending is an arms race), or the solution is obvious and inevitable. For example, we can save Social Security by phasing out old people.

"By phasing out old people"? Meaning what? Kill them? Remove them from Social Security?

I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#23

Post by tootahe45 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #11
legerdemain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it worth having any of these things at all, or are they inevitably a net negative in the long run anyway?

Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.

I'm getting bombarded with articles about people fleeing high tax states with out of control, ineffective govts. Can you explain which part isn't working? i've been under the assumption that state competition is one of the best parts about the US.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#24

Post by legerdemain »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #22
legerdemain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't include those things because they're either unsolvable (defense spending is an arms race), or the solution is obvious and inevitable. For example, we can save Social Security by phasing out old people.

"By phasing out old people"? Meaning what? Kill them? Remove them from Social Security? I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?

Allow average life expectancy to fall below retirement age.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#25

Post by AnimalMuppet »

LatteLazy wrote: post #11
legerdemain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it worth having any of these things at all, or are they inevitably a net negative in the long run anyway?

Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.

No, that was deliberate. Governments aren't omniscient. If a government is bad, stupid, or just mistaken in what the right policy is, it's better if that doesn't affect the whole country. And if there's another state right beside it that does better, the first state can see that other policies work better and might get their act together.

But if it was the federal government, it would affect everyone, not just one state. Also, there wouldn't be 50 examples for them to pick the best from. (There are other countries, but their circumstances tend to vary more than the circumstances between states, so it's easier for naysayer to argue that the example doesn't really apply.)

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#26

Post by LatteLazy »

tootahe45 wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.

I'm getting bombarded with articles about people fleeing high tax states with out of control, ineffective govts. Can you explain which part isn't working? i've been under the assumption that state competition is one of the best parts about the US.

Well... Healthcare, education, social work and infrastructure are all failing in the US for this specific reason. Don't get me wrong, maybe that's how the US likes it? I'm a brit, it's not my business how you run your country.

I was just saying, when you said these things should be done voluntary by local groups, that doesnt work because it's designed not to because that's how the US is.

It's great for lower taxes and as long as that is the o ly thing that you care about, you're golden!

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#27

Post by AnimalMuppet »

legerdemain wrote: post #24
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By phasing out old people"? Meaning what? Kill them? Remove them from Social Security? I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?

Allow average life expectancy to fall below retirement age.

Meaning, I presume, move the retirement age, rather than moving the life expectancy. OK, that makes some sense.

I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65.

So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very well. The second-order effect would probably be to increase unemployment, though, at least if you required it for people who are already retired.

They have moved up the retirement age, but less than the life expectancy has moved.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#28

Post by legerdemain »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27
legerdemain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow average life expectancy to fall below retirement age.

Meaning, I presume, move the retirement age, rather than moving the life expectancy. OK, that makes some sense. I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65. So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very w…

No, I actually mean proactively pursuing national public health policies that allow all of us to lead fuller, shorter lives. A disproportionate amount of medical spending is incurred in the last three years of the lives of Americans.[1] For many, those last years are spent in pain, or in a hospital, or in a sedated state, at astronomical expense.

Anecdotally, many people will tell you that they wouldn't want to live forever, that mortality is what gives life meaning and urgency. No one wishes to go on...

[1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017....

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#29

Post by dragonwriter »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

The proposed new Covid relief doesn't hold out much hope for next year, either. I mean, look, if people can't work temporarily, you can't let that destroy the economy. You have to get them through, and you have to have an economy for them to come back to. But you can also cause problems by building up too much government debt. (I don't know what the right answer is, but I see lots of problems...)

> But you can also cause problems by building up too much government debt.

You probably can, but even with another year of 3T deficit I think the net debt (I can't find good figure on that for the last few years) would be under 100% of GDP, which looking at history doesn't really seem likely to be any kind of giant problem in and of itself, even though gross debt being over 100% seems to be an intuitive scare threshold.

Re: U.S. government budget ends fiscal year with a more than $3T deficit

#30

Post by dragonwriter »

Shivetya wrote: post #20

Well we never will be able to tax our way out of it, there isn't enough wealth and you could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire and fall ridiculously short. the only out is to restrict spending. We don't actually have to cut anything even though we should. Hope budget increases below inflation as much as possible. Other countries have done it, why can't we? This means that programs that automatic increase…

> Well we never will be able to tax our way out of it, there isn't enough wealth and you could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire and fall ridiculously short.

Why would you try to pay off the national debt with a one-time wealth tax (whether restricted to billionaires or not)? That would be stupid.

> the only out is to restrict spending.

Or grow the economy over the long term, make service payments, and not worry about a grand payoff because what would even be the point of that?

Post reply on HN