That is the flip side of the coin. To go back and defend Franklin Roosevelt, SS was a sound system as designed in the 30's. We had an agricultural society and children were needed to work the farms, so the average family had 5 or 6 kids. At that birth rate, you would never have a problem with the workers supporting their parents, which is how SS was set up. The society changed, we became industrial, birth control became cheap and effective in 1960 with the pill, and now we only have 2 kids per couple. You can't hang that on FDR. Someone has needed to say the system has changed so radically that it is not viable in the long run, and change it to a better system, but that has not happened in the last 40 years since we recognized the problem. The other change that we are going through as a society is that extreme wealth can be earned through high intellect, while the labor of the masses is needed less and less. Robots and computers are replacing humans. I don't think a job paying a 'living wage' will be available for every person who needs one. We're either going to carry those without, or we'll fight them in the streets. There is a series of tough choices if you go that route, like we saw in the 60's in Watts, Detroit, and Chicago riots. If you radically change policy, you have to ask what the likely outcome is going to be. Agriculture used to employ the masses, then manufacturing. What is going to employ the masses in the future, those who through no fault of their own are not smart enough to work at Microsoft, Intel, or Merck? Will they earn a living wage? I don't have the answer to this one, but just ending welfare as we know it probably would have consequences we have not thought of, and some of them could be pretty bad. We may be better off just paying the taxes.
I am using GNP. GDP is one way to measure the economy but not the only way and not the best way. Keynesian economist love to use GDP because they absolutely love government spending. But government spending is mostly on salaries for federal employees, and contributes little to the GNP. No government can tax and spend its way into prosperity, which is a key component of Keynesian economic philosophy. Thankfully Keynesian economics have been pretty well discredited. There are few pure Keynesians around any more.
The difference between GDP & GNP is that GNP accounts for what domestic companies earn abroad minus what foreign companies earn here and expatriate. Government spending is an equal part of both GNP & GDP.
Keep watching. If you think the economy is not in a downward trend, then you aren't paying attention at all. You are misinformed. Where do you get this quaint notion?
He is correct in his point. There has been a slow down in positive growth, but we are yet to see any negative growth. We may be in the first blip of a minor recession, but we are not in one now based on the economic definition.
grossly misinformed, creating a recession for political purposes. So all the downturn and write-offs arent true, they are just saying it for political purposes would be your argument. I think you are smart enough not to repeat that out in public. this is not directed at red, but the comments he quoted from BB
Are you completely deranged? Government has increased hugely under the conservative Bush as compare to Clinton. Clinton at least paid for his expenditures and posted surpluses to pay down the national debt. Bush increased the rate of non-military government spending while irresponsibly cutting income and borrowing money which is hundreds of $billions wasted in interest payments. There is nothing socialist about the United States of America under liberals or conservatives. Perhaps you need to acquire a history book along with your dictionary. :wink: What liberal regimes? The only regime since the Clinton administrations reforms is George Bush's and he not only failed to reform social security, but he raised government spending, increased the size of government, and is spending a cool $Trillion dollars on his fiasco in Iraq. Your attempts to place all blame on the liberals defies facts, logic, and history. Radical conservatives like Bush are even worse than radical liberals like Ted Kennedy. At least Democrats haven't nominated the most radical among them, while the republicans have, to their detriment and shame. The most effective administrations in recent history are the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, both of whom presided as moderates. True success almost never lies at the extremes of the political spectrum, but somewhere in the middle. We need far less ideology on the right and the left and much more pragmatism.
What government can cut taxes, spend even more than the democrats, and and achieve prosperity? What is needed is a proper balance between spending and income.
