The Obama Economy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2013 4:00 PM GMT
    Here's a little snapshot of where we stand after "Recovery Summer 2009," "Recovery Summer 2010," "Recovery Summer 2011" and "Recovery Summer 2012."

    Indeed, it is no secret that the employment picture for low-skilled workers is abysmal. The national unemployment rate has been above 7.5 percent for more than four years and millions have dropped out of the workforce entirely.

    Among those without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate in May reached 11.1 percent, and for blacks without a high school diploma, it is more than 24 percent.

    The labor-force participation rate is at historic lows and long-term unemployment is the worst since the Great Depression.

    The workweek is shrinking, as well as wage rates.

    Barely one in two adult black males has a full-time job.

    A record 47 million people are on food stamps.


    Hope and change! Hope and change!

    http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201306140130
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 17, 2013 9:16 PM GMT
    Not to dispute your facts or be critical of your post CallMeAnytime, but the recovery in my little corner of the world has been remarkable. Of course, I bailed out of the good ole' USA and I'm not missing Barry's new taxes and continued support of looters and moochers. Those types perhaps need more support from Barry so they can live in a state of ultimate change just like the Greeks. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 1:08 AM GMT
    Funny how the news outlets don't mention all these quite important facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:42 AM GMT
    I'd say that considering the near catastrophic damage that the Republicans have done to the United States since Bush II (economy, erosion of civil liberties, erosion of the US's global standing as a beacon of freedom), and considering how they've been the "Party of NO" standing in the way of any real progress that President Obama and the Democrats in the Congress have done a remarkable job.

    Let the Conservapussies® moan and whine through 2016. I'm going to watch and listen with delight and shamelessly enjoy the schadenfreude.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 1:23 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidI'd say that considering the near catastrophic damage that the Republicans have done to the United States since Bush II (economy, erosion of civil liberties, erosion of the US's global standing as a beacon of freedom), and considering how they've been the "Party of NO" standing in the way of any real progress that President Obama and the Democrats in the Congress have done a remarkable job.

    Let the Conservapussies® moan and whine through 2016. I'm going to watch and listen with delight and shamelessly enjoy the schadenfreude.


    Stale.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 18, 2013 2:54 PM GMT
    NotSouthBeach said
    GAMRican saidI'd say that considering the near catastrophic damage that the Republicans have done to the United States since Bush II (economy, erosion of civil liberties, erosion of the US's global standing as a beacon of freedom), and considering how they've been the "Party of NO" standing in the way of any real progress that President Obama and the Democrats in the Congress have done a remarkable job.

    Let the Conservapussies® moan and whine through 2016. I'm going to watch and listen with delight and shamelessly enjoy the schadenfreude.


    Stale.


    Well said.. minus the "stale" addition....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 3:19 PM GMT
    Not a single lib who replied has an explanation as to how - 5 years after Bush left - each of these metrics is getting worse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    NotSouthBeach saidNot a single lib who replied has an explanation as to how - 5 years after Bush left - each of these metrics is getting worse.


    Cry, sis, cry. I know the feeling your Republican helplessness and angst. I can only imagine how this is tearing you up, making you angry, and at the same time leaving you with a certain listlessness.

    I know because I experienced these same feelings watching Bush II destroy the peace, prosperity, and the Constitution of the United States.

    Keep crying through 2016 (and maybe longer). Tus llorando y lagrimas son como una obra de teato muy divertido! jajajaja!



    Besides, we've seen your type of troll come and go around here for a long, long time. And, I'll do with you what I've done with your other fellow asshat Conservapussie® members. "Block and Ignore"

    Goodbye!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:33 PM GMT
    NotSouthBeach saidNot a single lib who replied has an explanation as to how - 5 years after Bush left - each of these metrics is getting worse.

    Republican obstructionism in Congress, the Party of No, and Republican control of many State governments.

    Now you have your answer, so STFU.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:42 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    NotSouthBeach saidNot a single lib who replied has an explanation as to how - 5 years after Bush left - each of these metrics is getting worse.

    Republican obstructionism in Congress, the Party of No, and Republican control of many State governments.

    Now you have your answer, so STFU.


    Really? These are just more excuses. The republicans only control 1/3 of one of the 3 branches of the federal government. Other democratic presidents such as Clinton got much more done even with republicans in control of both chambers of the congress. And Clinton got things done with a House that impeached him. It would say that was an even more hostile environment than Obama faces today.

    As for STFU. You just love suppressing other viewpoints don't you? Totalitarian old geezer.

    STFU. STFU. STFU moron.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:53 PM GMT
    OMFG, multiple socks talking to each other in the same thread.

    This forum is so lulz-worthy that Incendiary should be here roasting you guys.

    Hello, Firebrand, where are you? Hello? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 4:55 PM GMT
    showme saidOMFG, multiple socks talking to each other in the same thread.

    Yeah, it's the same guy, who has socks to reinforce himself. How sad, but also rather laughable. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 6:18 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    showme saidOMFG, multiple socks talking to each other in the same thread.

    Yeah, it's the same guy, who has socks to reinforce himself. How sad, but also rather laughable. icon_lol.gif


    Care to comment on the actual subject without sounding like a parrot with all your "sock sock sock" and democratic prepackaged talking points?

    How about a "yeah, Obama and the democrats have made things worse" admission?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 9:08 PM GMT
    chefBH said

    How about a "yeah, Obama and the democrats have made things worse" admission?


    Why should anyone pay you any regard? Having pissed away any credibility you may once have had, you should not come back here with a false identity and stolen photographs (yet again), expecting to be taken seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 11:37 PM GMT
    If everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 11:49 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIf everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?

    He just doesn't shut up. It is really weird and pathetic that however many times he is removed from the site, he needs to come back.


    It is usually just amusing but it was really offensive when he impersonated a black man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2013 11:52 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    Blakes7 saidIf everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?

    He just doesn't shut up. It is really weird and pathetic that however many times he is removed from the site, he needs to come back.
    Said the racist idiot who keeps coming back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 12:17 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    Blakes7 saidIf everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?

    He just doesn't shut up. It is really weird and pathetic that however many times he is removed from the site, he needs to come back.
    Said the racist idiot who keeps coming back.

    Comfort yourself that it is racism that motivates me when it is deep hatred for deliberate disinformation campaigns by agents of people inimical to the western way of life.

    I have great respect for the honour codes of Japan & China, you disgust me by allowing cdn citizenship to overrule that duty of honour and honesty.

    Funny how you say "keep coming back."
    Just because I do not comment often does not mean I am not here. I particular avoid your threads just because I generally refuse to open your threads on principle as not worth the time. There is always the hope you get paid less if people don't read the shit you post. icon_lol.gif

    the difference between people like me (who DO things in the community) vs people like you (you destroy the communities by outsourcing jobs, is I work to try to legislate people like you and help the people you harm. And I have gained real world respect and some note for it.

    You, on the other hand are sadly infamous on a forum for thread titles that belie the contents of the article cited, and are probably the least respected poster on RealJock bar none. (that includes Southbeach!)







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 12:26 AM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    Blakes7 saidIf everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?

    He just doesn't shut up. It is really weird and pathetic that however many times he is removed from the site, he needs to come back.
    Said the racist idiot who keeps coming back.

    Comfort yourself that it is racism that motivates me when it is deep hatred for deliberate disinformation campaigns by agents of people inimical to the western way of life.

    I have great respect for the honour codes of Japan & China, you disgust me by allowing cdn citizenship to overrule that duty of honour and honesty.

    Funny how you say "keep coming back."
    Just because I do not comment often does not mean I am not here. I particular avoid your threads just because I generally refuse to open your threads on principle as not worth the time. There is always the hope you get paid less if people don't read the shit you post. icon_lol.gif

    the difference between people like me (who DO things in the community) vs people like you (you destroy the communities by outsourcing jobs, is I work to try to legislate people like you and help the people you harm. And I have gained real world respect and some note for it.

    You, on the other hand are sadly infamous on a forum for thread titles that belie the contents of the article cited, and are probably the least respected poster on RealJock bar none. (that includes Southbeach!)


    The fact you return speaks for itself. Your racist tirades also speak for themselves. The fact you claim you do things for the community is meaningless - let alone says nothing about your level of effectiveness - which, upon reviewing your politics and the quality of your arguments and thought leaves much to be wanting.

    The fact is that those of us who actually create businesses and serve others do far more than those like you who leech of others. But do, please keep being who you are. Your delusions of grandeur, your racist tirades are at least a true and honest reflection of who you are. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 2:38 AM GMT
    Unintended said
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Cdn said
    Blakes7 saidIf everyone is so convinced that this person is the liar they claim he is, why does anyone pay attention to him?

    He just doesn't shut up. It is really weird and pathetic that however many times he is removed from the site, he needs to come back.
    Said the racist idiot who keeps coming back.

    Comfort yourself that it is racism that motivates me when it is deep hatred for deliberate disinformation campaigns by agents of people inimical to the western way of life.

    I have great respect for the honour codes of Japan & China, you disgust me by allowing cdn citizenship to overrule that duty of honour and honesty.

    Funny how you say "keep coming back."
    Just because I do not comment often does not mean I am not here. I particular avoid your threads just because I generally refuse to open your threads on principle as not worth the time. There is always the hope you get paid less if people don't read the shit you post. icon_lol.gif

    the difference between people like me (who DO things in the community) vs people like you (you destroy the communities by outsourcing jobs, is I work to try to legislate people like you and help the people you harm. And I have gained real world respect and some note for it.

    You, on the other hand are sadly infamous on a forum for thread titles that belie the contents of the article cited, and are probably the least respected poster on RealJock bar none. (that includes Southbeach!)


    The fact you return speaks for itself. Your racist tirades also speak for themselves. The fact you claim you do things for the community is meaningless - let alone says nothing about your level of effectiveness - which, upon reviewing your politics and the quality of your arguments and thought leaves much to be wanting.

    The fact is that those of us who actually create businesses and serve others do far more than those like you who leech of others. But do, please keep being who you are. Your delusions of grandeur, your racist tirades are at least a true and honest reflection of who you are. icon_wink.gif


    A psychologist would have a field day with this reply. His first comment would be "why is such an important person in China spending so much time on an American site with fairly little traffic..."


    Same with a certain Brit. And two other meddling Canadians.

    Anyway... care to comment on the facts presented at the beginning of this topic?
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jun 19, 2013 7:51 AM GMT
    As a legitimate question, and not as a defense of Bush II/Republicans, how long is a long enough period of time for the Obama Administration to have had a fair opportunity to:

    - Clear up enough of whatever political encumbrances were left behind by Bush?
    - Get his own policy-balls rolling?
    - Get a reasonable idea of whether Obama's policies are effective or not?

    While I'm not an American and am only indirectly affected by U.S. politics, the most obvious observation I can make is that popular opinion among many Americans (red and blue) is that Obama inherited the Oval Office not with a clean slate, but with an ailing economy, and the political encumbrances left behind by Bush II. Further, that this is the cause of their relatively ineffectual 4.5 years in office (with respect to the economy). And that's not to say that Obama is ineffectual in all facets of government...but his economic policy efforts just seem to amount to a labour in vain.

    A stunning example of this is the number of Americans using food stamps. When Obama took office, ~12% of the population in the U.S. was using food stamps. As of his re-election, that number is closer to 19.5% of the population. I don't necessarily attribute the increase to his policies, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask why none of his policies appear to be helping the situation. In absolute numbers, that's 14M households in 2008, and 23.5M households in December 2012. The average value of foodstamps received per household is about $280/month.


    The fiercest Obama supporters, (those who identify as a Democrat as if for sport) point to job gains and the lower unemployment rate as a sort of report card for Obama on the economy. There are a few major observations that can be made about the labour market:
    i.) The decrease in unemployment that has come from individuals leaving the labour market (I can't find the exact figure right now, but will share it when I do).
    ii.) The increase in food stamp/disability recipients relative to job gains. From Obama's first election to his re-election, 3.6 million jobs NFP jobs were gained (net). Impressive, but an incomplete picture. One way of completing the picture for gauging how people are doing is the change in the number of foodstamps/disability recipients compared to the increased jobs during the same time period. From the time Obama took office until his re-election, 21.8M *additional* individuals began receiving foodstamps/disability.

    All of a sudden, that jobs statistic that looked pretty good on its own looks a little less rosy. Just to reiterate the point here: 3.6M jobs were gained, but during the exact same time period, 21.8M *started* using food stamps. At $280/month/household and about 2.5 people per household, that costs the U.S. government an additional ~$29.3 billion per year. To completely offset the cost of new foostamp users, the average federal income tax generated by each of those 3.6M new jobs would have to be about $8,140 per year... and that's just to stay flat.

    iii.) Most of the private sector jobs gains are in the healthcare, education and defense industries...the most heavily subsidized industries.


    I'm not suggesting that these morbid statistics were caused by Obama's policies (correlation is not necessarily causation). However, I am suggesting that on issues like these, he should have more to show for being in office for 4.5 years. The average complete economic cycle is 8-10 years and he's got 3.5 years until he will had 8. In that time frame, one should expect things to correct gradually, and we're nowhere near where we need to be to be on track.

    Anyway, sorry for the longer post. But NotSouthBeach makes some very important points worthy of serious discussion. My point is that on economic policy, Obama's policies are turning out to be a labour in vain and eventually, people are going to have to stop blaming Bush and whatever else. Eight years is long enough for anyone to enact real change, address secular issues, and instigate major change. With just 3.5 yearsto go, it appears we're still at the starting line when it comes to his economic policy.

    Lastly, a disclaimer so as to avoid being sucked up into whatever banter may arise: I don't hate Obama. He advanced a lot of very important social frontiers in his first term. The job of the president is not 'run the economy,' it's 'run the country,' and those social issues are important. It just seems that the state of the economy is a more pressing issue for a greater number of people right now than are social issues. Also, I will openly say I'm not a fan of Obama's economic policies, but that does not always imply endorsement of Republican policies... And finally, there seems to be some back and forth about whether its socially acceptable on RJ to voice an opinion on the politics of another country based on whether or not you live in that country. Some of them are quite mature in their handling of it, others less so. My message to the latter: News is available everywhere and the world is globalized and integrated enough that the politics in every major country have some significance beyond domestic borders. Canada is the U.S's single largest trading partner and foreign oil supplier - expect some of us to pay attention to what goes on south of the border.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 8:10 AM GMT
    NotSouthBeach said

    Same with a certain Brit. And two other meddling Canadians.


    You see, clown, the same old lines keep betraying your real identity.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jun 19, 2013 8:29 AM GMT
    Another interesting point that is related to Obama's (and in this case, the Republicans too) longer-term economic policy is the sequester. There were three things that were MIA in the sequester: medicare, medicaid and social security (at least to the extent they relate to seniors). In 1960, these transfer payments comprised 28% of federal government outlays. In 1994, they were 50%. Today, they are 68% of government outlays.

    Here's the scary part: The demographic shifts between 1960-present haven't justified the long-term increasing trend in transfer payments as a % of outlays over that time period. However, they will justify an increase of similar scale within the next 40 years or so. Today there are about 4.5 workers for every retiree (i.e, for every 4.5 people paying into the system, the system is paying out to 1 person). Actuarial consensus is for 2.4 workers per retiree by 2050. So, if not demographic shifts, what drove that trend over the last 50 years? A powerful seniors lobby - the real weight they get to throw around is an aging population over time, resulting in an increasing proportion of the electorate. Actual seniors lobby groups use this as leverage to fan the flames of short-term politics. "Take away our plan D, and we'll support the other guy. Be careful, we have a lot of votes." Another driver is inflation in healthcare costs relative to CPI (ex healthcare related items); neither of these drivers are going away any time soon. That's where the problem will manifest itself. The U.S. is now at 68%, and that lobby groups are representing an increasingly larger pool of votes, and that the demographic expectations *do* justify a major increase in the % of outlays set aside for such transfers. There simply isn't room in any possible future budget for this trend to continue. As long as the % outlays going to these transfers is increasing faster than tax revenue, we know that it cannot continue for long; one generation will almost certainly be benefiting at the expense of the next. Chances are that this will be a major, major problem (politically, financially, economically and socially) long before 2050.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 2:04 PM GMT
    maxferguson saidAs a legitimate question, and not as a defense of Bush II/Republicans, how long is a long enough period of time for the Obama Administration to have had a fair opportunity to:

    - Clear up enough of whatever political encumbrances were left behind by Bush?
    - Get his own policy-balls rolling?
    - Get a reasonable idea of whether Obama's policies are effective or not?

    While I'm not an American and am only indirectly affected by U.S. politics, the most obvious observation I can make is that popular opinion among many Americans (red and blue) is that Obama inherited the Oval Office not with a clean slate, but with an ailing economy, and the political encumbrances left behind by Bush II. Further, that this is the cause of their relatively ineffectual 4.5 years in office (with respect to the economy). And that's not to say that Obama is ineffectual in all facets of government...but his economic policy efforts just seem to amount to a labour in vain.

    A stunning example of this is the number of Americans using food stamps. When Obama took office, ~12% of the population in the U.S. was using food stamps. As of his re-election, that number is closer to 19.5% of the population. I don't necessarily attribute the increase to his policies, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask why none of his policies appear to be helping the situation. In absolute numbers, that's 14M households in 2008, and 23.5M households in December 2012. The average value of foodstamps received per household is about $280/month.


    The fiercest Obama supporters, (those who identify as a Democrat as if for sport) point to job gains and the lower unemployment rate as a sort of report card for Obama on the economy. There are a few major observations that can be made about the labour market:
    i.) The decrease in unemployment that has come from individuals leaving the labour market (I can't find the exact figure right now, but will share it when I do).
    ii.) The increase in food stamp/disability recipients relative to job gains. From Obama's first election to his re-election, 3.6 million jobs NFP jobs were gained (net). Impressive, but an incomplete picture. One way of completing the picture for gauging how people are doing is the change in the number of foodstamps/disability recipients compared to the increased jobs during the same time period. From the time Obama took office until his re-election, 21.8M *additional* individuals began receiving foodstamps/disability.

    All of a sudden, that jobs statistic that looked pretty good on its own looks a little less rosy. Just to reiterate the point here: 3.6M jobs were gained, but during the exact same time period, 21.8M *started* using food stamps. At $280/month/household and about 2.5 people per household, that costs the U.S. government an additional ~$29.3 billion per year. To completely offset the cost of new foostamp users, the average federal income tax generated by each of those 3.6M new jobs would have to be about $8,140 per year... and that's just to stay flat.

    iii.) Most of the private sector jobs gains are in the healthcare, education and defense industries...the most heavily subsidized industries.


    I'm not suggesting that these morbid statistics were caused by Obama's policies (correlation is not necessarily causation). However, I am suggesting that on issues like these, he should have more to show for being in office for 4.5 years. The average complete economic cycle is 8-10 years and he's got 3.5 years until he will had 8. In that time frame, one should expect things to correct gradually, and we're nowhere near where we need to be to be on track.

    Anyway, sorry for the longer post. But NotSouthBeach makes some very important points worthy of serious discussion. My point is that on economic policy, Obama's policies are turning out to be a labour in vain and eventually, people are going to have to stop blaming Bush and whatever else. Eight years is long enough for anyone to enact real change, address secular issues, and instigate major change. With just 3.5 yearsto go, it appears we're still at the starting line when it comes to his economic policy.

    Lastly, a disclaimer so as to avoid being sucked up into whatever banter may arise: I don't hate Obama. He advanced a lot of very important social frontiers in his first term. The job of the president is not 'run the economy,' it's 'run the country,' and those social issues are important. It just seems that the state of the economy is a more pressing issue for a greater number of people right now than are social issues. Also, I will openly say I'm not a fan of Obama's economic policies, but that does not always imply endorsement of Republican policies... And finally, there seems to be some back and forth about whether its socially acceptable on RJ to voice an opinion on the politics of another country based on whether or not you live in that country. Some of them are quite mature in their handling of it, others less so. My message to the latter: News is available everywhere and the world is globalized and integrated enough that the politics in every major country have some significance beyond domestic borders. Canada is the U.S's single largest trading partner and foreign oil supplier - expect some of us to pay attention to what goes on south of the border.


    That's one of the most intelligent posts I've read on here. Thanks very much.

    To answer your question of "how long is long enough?" That is a question that the Democrats will NEVER answer because they know that their economic policies are actually hindering economic recovery.

    So what we get from them is a combination of:

    "The policies ARE working" and "the Republicans are the party of NO and they are blocking the policies that WOULD work if they would let us enact them."

    In a nutshell, that's what we're stuck with over here until January of 2017.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 2:12 PM GMT
    maxferguson saidAnother interesting point that is related to Obama's (and in this case, the Republicans too) longer-term economic policy is the sequester. There were three things that were MIA in the sequester: medicare, medicaid and social security (at least to the extent they relate to seniors). In 1960, these transfer payments comprised 28% of federal government outlays. In 1994, they were 50%. Today, they are 68% of government outlays.

    Here's the scary part: The demographic shifts between 1960-present haven't justified the long-term increasing trend in transfer payments as a % of outlays over that time period. However, they will justify an increase of similar scale within the next 40 years or so. Today there are about 4.5 workers for every retiree (i.e, for every 4.5 people paying into the system, the system is paying out to 1 person). Actuarial consensus is for 2.4 workers per retiree by 2050. So, if not demographic shifts, what drove that trend over the last 50 years? A powerful seniors lobby - the real weight they get to throw around is an aging population over time, resulting in an increasing proportion of the electorate. Actual seniors lobby groups use this as leverage to fan the flames of short-term politics. "Take away our plan D, and we'll support the other guy. Be careful, we have a lot of votes." Another driver is inflation in healthcare costs relative to CPI (ex healthcare related items); neither of these drivers are going away any time soon. That's where the problem will manifest itself. The U.S. is now at 68%, and that lobby groups are representing an increasingly larger pool of votes, and that the demographic expectations *do* justify a major increase in the % of outlays set aside for such transfers. There simply isn't room in any possible future budget for this trend to continue. As long as the % outlays going to these transfers is increasing faster than tax revenue, we know that it cannot continue for long; one generation will almost certainly be benefiting at the expense of the next. Chances are that this will be a major, major problem (politically, financially, economically and socially) long before 2050.



    Another great post, thanks.

    I heard an estimate last week that those programs are underfunded to the tune of over $100 TRILLION between now and 2050. It's quite clear what's going to happen: Some "unlucky" group of politicians in the next decade or two won't be able to dodge the issue that we as a country can't afford these "government paid-benefits" and, as we are seeing in Detroit, people will get something like 10 cents on the dollar in terms of payouts. That's the only way out of this.