Magikusar's daily/weekly musings

[Primemuscle]

just amazing this fiscal cliff bullshit

debt is caused by spending more than you take in!!!!

cut spending!!!

Cutting spending alone won't solve the problem. For this to work, spending would have to be cut drastically and that would cause other problems.

As a nation, we have become dependent on social programs (I think the term benefits is more appropriate that entitlements) such as, SSI, SSD, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are funded through taxation. Employees and employers pay these taxes including all those who are self employed. These programs have been in place for decades. This means a nation of people have come to depend on them and to expect that they will be there when needed. This expectation is not unrealistic considering most of us have made a pretty good investment in these benefits over the course of our working lives.

Additionally, because SSI, SSD, Medicare, Medicaid and Financial Assistance are guaranteed to those who qualify, this has taken away some of the burden of families and friends helping or caring for one another. Medicare and Medicaid as well as health insurance have helped facilitate the high cost of medical care. To be fair, so has the ability to treat illness that a few decades ago, people simply died from.

One analogy might be that these benefits have made many people similar to domesticated dogs. Most canines today are completely dependent on their owners for survival. If said owner decided to cut expenses by letting their dog loose on the world, many would refuse to leave and most would not survive. By feeding and taking care of all of the needs of these little puppies since they were born, we have made them completely dependent on us. One difference is the puppies did not pay into this plan, unless you consider unconditional love payment, but we humans have paid for our benefits and continue to do so.

Human nature is such that those who don't need benefits now, don't appreciate the value of them and resent those who do need them. For example, if you are young and healthy, you may not see any reason for health insurance. Further if you are of working age, particularly if you are younger, you probably cannot imagine a time when you are no longer able to work and might need SSI to help you get by. One way to prove this point is to look at how few young people save or invest on their own any of their current income so it will be there to provide for them when they are old. It is no wonder they don't like paying into SSI and Medicare. Heck, most young people don't even believe they will ever get old or sick....but most will at some point in time.

If these programs need to be reduced to balance the budget, this must be done prospectively. People live longer today then they did several decades ago. They are also, for the most part healthier and can work longer. Adjusting the age for SSI and Medicare accordingly may be one fair way to reduce the expense of these programs. Some of this has already occurred as the retirement age for SSI has increased over the years. SSI should be there for those who have reached an age when they are no longer able to work or are as productive as they might be when they were younger. Medicare or some other medical insurance plan should be available to those who cannot get or afford other insurance plans.

I doubt most citizens of the U.S. are willing to scrap all social programs. If this were to happen, people would be dying in the streets much as they do in third world countries.

[whork]

Cutting spending alone won't solve the problem. For this to work, spending would have to be cut drastically and that would cause other problems.

As a nation, we have become dependent on social programs (I think the term benefits is more appropriate that entitlements) such as, SSI, SSD, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are funded through taxation. Employees and employers pay these taxes including all those who are self employed. These programs have been in place for decades. This means a nation of people have come to depend on them and to expect that they will be there when needed. This expectation is not unrealistic considering most of us have made a pretty good investment in these benefits over the course of our working lives.

Additionally, because SSI, SSD, Medicare, Medicaid and Financial Assistance are guaranteed to those who qualify, this has taken away some of the burden of families and friends helping or caring for one another. Medicare and Medicaid as well as health insurance have helped facilitate the high cost of medical care. To be fair, so has the ability to treat illness that a few decades ago, people simply died from.

One analogy might be that these benefits have made many people similar to domesticated dogs. Most canines today are completely dependent on their owners for survival. If said owner decided to cut expenses by letting their dog loose on the world, many would refuse to leave and most would not survive. By feeding and taking care of all of the needs of these little puppies since they were born, we have made them completely dependent on us. One difference is the puppies did not pay into this plan, unless you consider unconditional love payment, but we humans have paid for our benefits and continue to do so.

Human nature is such that those who don't need benefits now, don't appreciate the value of them and resent those who do need them. For example, if you are young and healthy, you may not see any reason for health insurance. Further if you are of working age, particularly if you are younger, you probably cannot imagine a time when you are no longer able to work and might need SSI to help you get by. One way to prove this point is to look at how few young people save or invest on their own any of their current income so it will be there to provide for them when they are old. It is no wonder they don't like paying into SSI and Medicare. Heck, most young people don't even believe they will ever get old or sick....but most will at some point in time.

If these programs need to be reduced to balance the budget, this must be done prospectively. People live longer today then they did several decades ago. They are also, for the most part healthier and can work longer. Adjusting the age for SSI and Medicare accordingly may be one fair way to reduce the expense of these programs. Some of this has already occurred as the retirement age for SSI has increased over the years. SSI should be there for those who have reached an age when they are no longer able to work or are as productive as they might be when they were younger. Medicare or some other medical insurance plan should be available to those who cannot get or afford other insurance plans.

I doubt most citizens of the U.S. are willing to scrap all social programs. If this were to happen, people would be dying in the streets much as they do in third world countries.

Not your typical GB post.

Well done sir.

[magikusar]

Why are the tax payers supposed to get the bill for sandy?

Don't these people have home insurance?

What the hell do you for insurance for if the insurance never covers you?
Sandy blasts $80B hole through debt talks
 By Erik Wasson  -  11/28/12 03:53 PM ET

 
 
 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Northeastern lawmakers are seeking $80 billion from Congress to pay for damage caused by Superstorm Sandy — a demand that could wreak havoc on negotiations for a deal on the deficit.

 
 Bloomberg (I) traveled to the Capitol on Wednesday to press lawmakers to approve the $80 billion supplemental appropriations bill — without offsets and with new levels of flexibility — to aid the recovery of New York and New Jersey.


Senators from the two states are also urging the White House to seek a sweeping aid package next week when it asks Congress to prepare the bill to cover storm costs.

The $80 billion amount is more than all the money that would be saved by ending the Bush-era tax rates for top earners next year. The fight over those rates has proven the major sticking point in talks to avert the "fiscal cliff" of tax hikes and spending cuts.

Bloomberg made his request to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who in the past has sought spending cuts to offset disaster aid.

The mayor said that Cantor “understands New York” and its needs but that the GOP leader gave him no commitment that the emergency spending bill would not need to be offset.

Bloomberg said Cantor told him he must consult with his Republican colleagues and examine the disaster aid request before making commitments.

A GOP aide said that Cantor stressed during the meeting that the August debt deal specifically "created a mechanism for budgeting for disasters with the 10-year rolling average."

Cantor has made clear that needs beyond the $11 billion allotted by the Budget Control Act will be properly considered, the aide said.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) received $7 billion in funds at the beginning of October.

It is now down to $5 billion as claims related to Sandy mount, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.

Under the August 2011 budget deal, FEMA can get $5 billion without offsets.

Schumer said more money is needed immediately for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Transportation Department and Community Development Block Grants to deal with the storm and to mitigate future storm damage.

Because of high home prices and expenses in the New York area, Schumer wants to do away with limits such as a $31,000-per-home cap on repairs.

He said that New York and New Jersey senators met late into Tuesday night with the Obama administration's point man on the storm, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan. They demanded a “large” supplemental bill that reflects New York’s need for $42 billion and New Jersey’s request for $37 billion.

“There is no doubt this is going to be a hard fight,” Schumer said. “It comes in the middle of strenuous negotiations around the fiscal cliff.”

Schumer said he was working to keep the quest for Sandy aid separate from the talks and to preserve a tradition of not offsetting disaster relief.

Before Thanksgiving, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told The Hill that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told him disaster needs would not need to be offset. Neither Boehner nor his office has confirmed the Speaker made the commitment.

Schumer added that because of a ban on earmarks, senators are working to make sure the initial disaster aid request is tailored to New York's needs.

He and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) were to meet with President Obama’s budget director, Jeff Zients, Wednesday evening.

The New York delegation expects to need multiple Sandy bills in the future.

Bloomberg on Wednesday also met with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), who is working on a massive omnibus spending bill to replace the 2013 continuing resolution now in effect.

The need for a Sandy bill could drive an omnibus bill to passage, aides say.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/269931-lawmakers-press-for-giant-sandy-bill-amid-fiscal-cliff-talks

[magikusar]

Cutting spending alone won't solve the problem. For this to work, spending would have to be cut drastically and that would cause other problems.

As a nation, we have become dependent on social programs (I think the term benefits is more appropriate that entitlements) such as, SSI, SSD, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are funded through taxation. Employees and employers pay these taxes including all those who are self employed. These programs have been in place for decades. This means a nation of people have come to depend on them and to expect that they will be there when needed. This expectation is not unrealistic considering most of us have made a pretty good investment in these benefits over the course of our working lives.

Additionally, because SSI, SSD, Medicare, Medicaid and Financial Assistance are guaranteed to those who qualify, this has taken away some of the burden of families and friends helping or caring for one another. Medicare and Medicaid as well as health insurance have helped facilitate the high cost of medical care. To be fair, so has the ability to treat illness that a few decades ago, people simply died from.

One analogy might be that these benefits have made many people similar to domesticated dogs. Most canines today are completely dependent on their owners for survival. If said owner decided to cut expenses by letting their dog loose on the world, many would refuse to leave and most would not survive. By feeding and taking care of all of the needs of these little puppies since they were born, we have made them completely dependent on us. One difference is the puppies did not pay into this plan, unless you consider unconditional love payment, but we humans have paid for our benefits and continue to do so.

Human nature is such that those who don't need benefits now, don't appreciate the value of them and resent those who do need them. For example, if you are young and healthy, you may not see any reason for health insurance. Further if you are of working age, particularly if you are younger, you probably cannot imagine a time when you are no longer able to work and might need SSI to help you get by. One way to prove this point is to look at how few young people save or invest on their own any of their current income so it will be there to provide for them when they are old. It is no wonder they don't like paying into SSI and Medicare. Heck, most young people don't even believe they will ever get old or sick....but most will at some point in time.

If these programs need to be reduced to balance the budget, this must be done prospectively. People live longer today then they did several decades ago. They are also, for the most part healthier and can work longer. Adjusting the age for SSI and Medicare accordingly may be one fair way to reduce the expense of these programs. Some of this has already occurred as the retirement age for SSI has increased over the years. SSI should be there for those who have reached an age when they are no longer able to work or are as productive as they might be when they were younger. Medicare or some other medical insurance plan should be available to those who cannot get or afford other insurance plans.

I doubt most citizens of the U.S. are willing to scrap all social programs. If this were to happen, people would be dying in the streets much as they do in third world countries.

on the contrary

cutting spending would absolutly solve the problem

[Straw Man]

on the contrary

cutting spending would absolutly solve the problem

Yep.  It worked great in the Uk

[magikusar]

created to make fun of the guy who made piss christ with feces n urine and the obama as christ recent artwork and to underscore the left rails against nasty stuff only when its not them doing it


bidding reached over $11,000

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ebay-yanks-becks-obama-in-pee-pee-art-project-meant-to-raise-money-for-charity/

[magikusar]

Yep.  It worked great in the Uk

canada did in the in 90s and erased deficit

[garebear]

.

[magikusar]

Obama raising taxes is not going to help cut the deficit.

cutting spending will

you have a deficit due to overspending

same as your kid and her creditcard

[Primemuscle]

Why are the tax payers supposed to get the bill for sandy?

Don't these people have home insurance?

What the hell do you for insurance for if the insurance never covers you?
Sandy blasts $80B hole through debt talks
 By Erik Wasson  -  11/28/12 03:53 PM ET

I know what you are saying. One would think homeowners insurance would take care of people's losses. Such is simply not the case. Basically, homeowners insurance is fire, theft and liability insurance. Often it does not cover losses in the event of natural disasters. Flood insurance comes at an additional cost and often can't be purchased in areas where flooding is a problem. I live in the west where earthquakes are more common. However, basic homeowners insurance does not cover earthquake damage. One must purchase additional earthquake insurance and few folks actually do.

Floods — defined by insurers as any water that rises from the ground, including tidal waves, as well as destruction from rapid snow melts — aren’t covered by traditional policies. To get reimbursed for water damage, homeowners would need additional flood insurance, which is provided by the federal government but can be purchased through an agent or insurance company. The average flood premium is about $600 annually, but rates go up to nearly $6,000 for the highest-risk coastal properties, according to the National Flood Insurance Program.

Basic homeowners policies do, however, typically pay for damage caused by winds — including broken windows, torn roofs and any interior damage from water falling into the home.  Likewise, if strong winds blow tree limbs or entire trees onto a home, garage or shed. (If a tree falls onto a car, many comprehensive auto policies will cover the damage.)

But in many states on the East Coast, homeowners will have to pay a hefty deductible before homeowners’ insurance policies kick in — often 1% to 5% of the total amount the home is insured for — according to the Insurance Information Institute spokesman.

If a home becomes so damaged that it’s uninhabitable, most standard homeowner policies will pay for a family’s living expenses — including lodging and food — while the house is being repaired, says the Insurance Information Institute spokesman.

Increasingly, insurers have added a second deductible -- which can be considerably bigger -- that applies only if your home is damaged by a hurricane. Your hurricane deductible is typically in a range of 1 percent to 5 percent of the value of your home, according to the Insurance Information Institute, and could be even higher. That means if your home is worth $300,000, your hurricane deductible would likely cost you between $3,000 and $15,000, and possibly more.

[magikusar]

Its tuff, and all the more reason for mass produced housing

the faster hosues are commdoified like a dektop computer

then faster this kinda thing is cheaper to  bounce back from

All the 30million unemplyed could be used for the factories

economic boom

and people could get used to using stocks or other assets not land as store of value


which is archaic

[Primemuscle]

Obama raising taxes is not going to help cut the deficit.

cutting spending will

you have a deficit due to overspending

same as your kid and her creditcard

Don't be a broken record, Magikusar. Rather then simply repeating your chant, how about offering some suggestions on where government spending should be cut, including any possible fallout from these cuts. By comparing government overspending to a child with a credit card, you are definitely oversimplifying the situation. For example if it were so simple, the solution would be to simply cancel the "credit card."

Incidentally, President Obama does not have the authority to raise taxes; Congress does. Congress isn't talking about raising taxes per se. What they will be discussing is whether or not to allow tax breaks, which have been in place for some time, to lapse completely or whether to make adjustments, so that some of these tax breaks continue for an additional period of time.

[Primemuscle]

Its tuff, and all the more reason for mass produced housing

the faster hosues are commdoified like a dektop computer

then faster this kinda thing is cheaper to  bounce back from

All the 30million unemplyed could be used for the factories

economic boom

and people could get used to using stocks or other assets not land as store of value


which is archaic

Do you remember what your fellow John Allison said about housing? "Housing is a commodity," he said.

What manner of mass produced housing do you propose that can withstand hurricane force winds, severe flooding and possibly even fires? Most of today's mass produced pre-fab housing is sub-standard construction. Higher end factory built housing, such as Glidehouse http://www.bluhomes.com/homes/glidehouse/#http://www.bluhomes.com/wp-content/uploads/gl-p-WA-10-0014-xxxx-ext-096e-590x443.jpg are actually more expensive then many stick built homes.

[Straw Man]

Obama raising taxes is not going to help cut the deficit.

cutting spending will

you have a deficit due to overspending

same as your kid and her creditcard

sure it will

Using your simplistic example you could go out and get an extra job or work more hours at work and RAISE your revenue and use that new revenue to pay down your debt


 

[magikusar]

Do you remember what your fellow John Allison said about housing? "Housing is a commodity," he said.

What manner of mass produced housing do you propose that can withstand hurricane force winds, severe flooding and possibly even fires? Most of today's mass produced pre-fab housing is sub-standard construction. Higher end factory built housing, such as Glidehouse http://www.bluhomes.com/homes/glidehouse/#http://www.bluhomes.com/wp-content/uploads/gl-p-WA-10-0014-xxxx-ext-096e-590x443.jpg are actually more expensive then many stick built homes.

When prices of good falls we all get richer since our purchasing power goes up.

[magikusar]

sure it will

Using your simplistic example you could go out and get an extra job or work more hours at work and RAISE your revenue and use that new revenue to pay down your debt


 

I think you are missing what causes the debt: government overspending.

If you lower government spending people are better off and the economy imporves.

Government spends the money wastefully and get nothing to show for it.

[Straw Man]

I think you are missing what causes the debt: government overspending.

If you lower government spending people are better off and the economy imporves.

Government spends the money wastefully and get nothing to show for it.

no doubt there are spending cuts to be made but we can also raise revenue as well

nothing magical about either one

[magikusar]

I think we should have cuts now and tax increaces over 10 years.

[avxo]

no doubt there are spending cuts to be made but we can also raise revenue as well

nothing magical about either one

As much as I dislike the concept of raising taxes and provided the raising is done by closing loopholes first and before any actual increases of tax rates are considered, I can deal with that.

[magikusar]

the printing money is an old trick

its so seductive to politicians because you spend without raising taxes

rome fell due to it

I do not want USA to

USA best example of capitalism

of success outside the governmetn quagmire

fdr didnt get taht the success after the war was because war spending stopped

fed caused great depression

fed causes boom bust

2008 caused by fed and fannie with clinton law you must give poor default guy a loan not wall st

cut governmetn 20% as canada did in 90s and debt reased in 5 years

if you spend 10 and make 15 and owe 20 soon things ok right?

[magikusar]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Obama-top-advisors-90-percent-white-male

Even as the media complains that Republican House officials have installed males at the top of their committees, it ignores the fact that President Obama’s senior advisors are almost entirely white males. The only top advisor who is a female or minority is Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s longtime maternal figure. Other top advisors include Vice President Joe Biden, Senior Advisor David Plouffe, Chief of Staff Jack Lew, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Press Secretary Jay Carney.

[avxo]

the printing money is an old trick

its so seductive to politicians because you spend without raising taxes

rome fell due to it

I do not want USA to

USA best example of capitalism

of success outside the governmetn quagmire

fdr didnt get taht the success after the war was because war spending stopped

fed caused great depression

fed causes boom bust

2008 caused by fed and fannie with clinton law you must give poor default guy a loan not wall st

cut governmetn 20% as canada did in 90s and debt reased in 5 years

if you spend 10 and make 15 and owe 20 soon things ok right?

Your inability to formulate coherent, logical thoughts and express them cogently is stunning. I am genuinely puzzled as to how you can manage to operate - hell, how you can even maintain homeostasis - if your brain generates output like that in your posts.

[magikusar]

Your inability to formulate coherent, logical thoughts and express them cogently is stunning. I am genuinely puzzled as to how you can manage to operate - hell, how you can even maintain homeostasis - if your brain generates output like that in your posts.

You sound like a ignorant egomaniacal 10 year old lecturing a theater full of college grads.
Your task is to simply read the clear plain english I write.
You don't like it so you squak.
I don't care.
I reccomend a few hours on youtube watching Milton Friedman, Tom Woods, and Peter Schiff.

[avxo]

You sound like a ignorant egomaniacal 10 year old lecturing a theater full of college grads.

There isn't much intelligence to be found in a theater full of college grads. I know because I've taught at a University.

Your task is to simply read the clear plain english I write.

LOL...

You don't like it so you squak.

The irony is that what little bit comes through the nonsense-soup is often stuff that I agree with.

[magikusar]

There isn't much intelligence to be found in a theater full of college grads. I know because I've taught at a University.


LOL...


The irony is that what little bit comes through the nonsense-soup is often stuff that I agree with.

What did you teach?
It is no suprise you are an academic.
My posts are in plain english, if you have trouble accepting the ideas, well thats because you are a communist, most likely, and government schools have miseducated you.