Live data from Hacker News

Deficit Reduction

avc.com

1–10 of 44 posts

Re: Deficit Reduction

#2
====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

Gold autumn, personality Mes clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

====== ( http://u.ly/73I )====

Re: Deficit Reduction

#3
He is wrong on the second count, nyt had an info thing some time ago where you could come up with a plan to balance the federal budget.

It was easy to do without raising taxes.

Re: Deficit Reduction

#4
Some numbers in this analysis are a bit misleading - if you view the budget as "social security, defense, and everything else", the huge portion of the budget taken up by Medicare and Medicaid is papered over. Medicare+Medicaid is $788b, more than Social Security, and is similarly "untouchable". (source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Mandatory.htm)

Not to say that I think Social Security shouldn't be touched. I do think that as a matter of purpose, Social Security needs to be a defined benefit plan, even if we have to cut those benefits to some degree or another to make ends meet.

Re: Deficit Reduction

#5
Military and "defense" costs far more than "just" $1 trillion every year.

There are many many hidden costs and the massive expenses for the thousands of severely wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that survived instead of dying because of modern medical technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

Military expense is a MONSTER that just grows and grows and grows.

ps. The costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan war are technically done outside the budget and through borrowed money. The INTEREST on them alone is over $500 Billion

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.h...

Re: Deficit Reduction

#6
Our country continues to operate a defined benefits plan while most businesses have moved to a defined contribution plan.

A government-run defined contribution plan would almost certainly have to have some kind of guaranteed payment floor to be politically viable, which would encourage serious moral hazard in investing.

I also wonder how many companies can offer defined contribution plans because their employees are also automatically part of a defined benefit plan (i.e., social security).

Re: Deficit Reduction

#7
I can't read the comments for this article. It makes my brain hurt. Everything from 9/11 being an inside job to increase the national security net to the concept that the USA exists as a totalitarian empire.

Re: Deficit Reduction

#8
post #3

He is wrong on the second count, nyt had an info thing some time ago where you could come up with a plan to balance the federal budget. It was easy to do without raising taxes.

It might be easy to do in a spreadsheet, but that doesn't mean it's easy to do in a politically realistic way.

Re: Deficit Reduction

#9
Fixing Social Security - it's always up for discussion and nothing ever gets done about it. The frustrating part is that the solution is somewhat simple, but politically it's untouchable. Here's my quick & simple solution for the problem:

1) Phase out Social Security benefits if your income level hits $50k that year. - This aspect of Social Security is perhaps most baffling - why does someone who is making $250k a year on their pension and 401k distributions getting the same amount of Social Security as someone who's destitute and barely getting by? "But I paid into it, I should get something out of it!" goes the argument by rich people. Really? I pay into my car insurance every 6 months, never been in an accident, and I don't get a refund check when I'm done driving! Social Security is insurance, it's not a deferred savings plan. Social Security is really called FICA, and the "I" stands for insurance. It's insurance in case you don't have enough money to survive in old age, and the benefit payouts should reflect that. Someone making over 100k a year doesn't need another 25k a year in Social Security benefits to survive.

2) Take away the cap on contributions. Last year any dollar you made above $106k wasn't taxed at the 6.2% FICA rate. Why?

3) Make the Social Security Administration an independent entity free from Congress's whims, and more importantly, free from Congress's hands dipping into its pockets every time they need cash. Social Security should have a huge surplus right now in cash, as over the years they've always had more pay-in than pay-outs. Too bad Congress took all that money and spent it. Social Security is full of government bonds right now, essentially IOU's from Congress that "we promise to pay you back".

Combine #1 and #2 and you have a simple solution to both decrease payouts and increase pay-ins. Add #3 and you're assured that this institution (which isn't some evil socialist creation but really should be thought of as "poverty insurance") can be a self-sustaining, solvent part of our country forever.

Re: Deficit Reduction

#10
Please note: Romer writes about "dealing with the LONG-RUN budget deficit". The short-run deficit MUST be high right now.

In the current policy debate, debt is often invoked as a reason to dismiss calls for expansionary fiscal policy as a response to unemployment; you can’t solve a problem created by debt by running up even more debt.

It assumes, implicitly, that debt is debt -- that it doesn't matter who owes the money. Yet that can't be right; if it were, debt wouldn't be a problem in the first place. After all, to a first approximation debt is money we owe to ourselves. The overall level of debt makes no difference to aggregate net worth -- one person's liability is another person's asset.

The level of debt matters only because the distribution of that debt matters. Borrowing by some actors now can help cure problems created by excess borrowing by other actors in the past. Deficit-financed government spending can allow the economy to avoid unemployment and deflation while highly indebted private-sector agents repair their balance sheets, and the government can pay down its debts once the deleveraging crisis is past.

Post reply on HN