By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - So does government spending stimulate the economy? YES and here is the numbers

 

Does government spending help stimulate the economy?

Yes 15 35.71%
 
NO 22 52.38%
 
After reading the numbers... 5 11.90%
 
Total:42
Kasz216 on 21 August 2011
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:


From my (very limited) understanding, up until the child is "school aged" they are in high demand but after that demand (essentially) disappears ...

You could be right, really just the point is that there is plenty of demand for adoption... it just doesn't seem that way due to all the kids.


Generally, its very difficult to adopt up to about 2 or 3 years old. After that, the desire to adopt drops off - especially when it is a baby of a minority ethnicity.

A good example of our adoption system is told to us by Tony Dungy, former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. He and his family have adopted multiple children in their lives. When they went to adopt their first boy, the case worker told them it would take 3 years and cost tens of thousands of dollars. When she asked what age they wanted for their white baby (the Dungys are black, FWIW), Tony and his wife told the worker that they simply wanted to adopt, and any child of any race was fine. The case worker's response was "We thought you wanted a white baby. If you are okay with a black baby, you can take one home today.'.

Here is a whitepaper on adoption statistics from 1957-current. According to their data, less adoptions take place today than in 1970, despite the fact that US population has increased considerably: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13653_Chapter3.pdf

Of course, the crest being the year before Roe v. Wade was introduced.

That's an espiecally amusing story if you know anything about tony Dungy.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 21 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:


From my (very limited) understanding, up until the child is "school aged" they are in high demand but after that demand (essentially) disappears ...

You could be right, really just the point is that there is plenty of demand for adoption... it just doesn't seem that way due to all the kids.


Generally, its very difficult to adopt up to about 2 or 3 years old. After that, the desire to adopt drops off - especially when it is a baby of a minority ethnicity.

A good example of our adoption system is told to us by Tony Dungy, former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. He and his family have adopted multiple children in their lives. When they went to adopt their first boy, the case worker told them it would take 3 years and cost tens of thousands of dollars. When she asked what age they wanted for their white baby (the Dungys are black, FWIW), Tony and his wife told the worker that they simply wanted to adopt, and any child of any race was fine. The case worker's response was "We thought you wanted a white baby. If you are okay with a black baby, you can take one home today.'.

Here is a whitepaper on adoption statistics from 1957-current. According to their data, less adoptions take place today than in 1970, despite the fact that US population has increased considerably: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13653_Chapter3.pdf

Of course, the crest being the year before Roe v. Wade was introduced.

That's an espiecally amusing story if you know anything about tony Dungy.

It is. The story came from his book I bought 'Quiet Strength'. Read the entire thing on a flight from Ohio to Eugene, Oregon.

Although it is entirely anecdotal, it denotes the state our adoption system is in if someone with as much influence and cash as Dungy cannot adopt a 'white' baby without significant amount of cost and red tape. Additionally, it makes no sense why there would even be a notable cost to adopt an unwanted child. Last I checked, doing such saved the state money, not the opposite.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kantor on 22 August 2011

Undeniably.

However, if you spend too much for too long, you create a culture of dependency, and productivity will fall. Moreover, to spend more, you have to tax more, and there's only so much extra you can tax the "rich" before you have to start taxing the poor.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 22 August 2011
spurgeonryan said:
Thought this email was interesting about people on social security disability which will be out of money by 2017 or earlier. and they are thinking of taking away from retirement which would reduce it more as well even though they work for it forever

Not really.

The Truth is Social Security has no money.

Note during the debt ceiling crisis the first thing Obama said was they weren't going to be able to pay social security.

Once any social security money goes into the sysetm it's used to buy special issue government bonds.

Which are essentially IOUs.

They may use the bankrupting of the IOUS as an excuse to not pay people what they're old.



Kasz216 on 22 August 2011
spurgeonryan said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Thought this email was interesting about people on social security disability which will be out of money by 2017 or earlier. and they are thinking of taking away from retirement which would reduce it more as well even though they work for it forever

Not really.

The Truth is Social Security has no money.

Note during the debt ceiling crisis the first thing Obama said was they weren't going to be able to pay social security.

Once any social security money goes into the sysetm it's used to buy special issue government bonds.

Which are essentially IOUs.

They may use the bankrupting of the IOUS as an excuse to not pay people what they're old.


I don't know if you know anything about the Chicago area, but supposedly all the teachers lost there retirement because the state used it. From what I was told they did not do social security because they had a pension or something. If that is actually what happened, would that be the same as what you mentioned up above? The government issued I.O.U's and did not pay them?

Looking it up, it actually looks to be totally different.  Soical Security benefits should be paid to anyone who put in enough credits to qualify, regardless of how many "IOUs" the fund has... since theoretically you are supposed to be paying in for YOUR benefits, it's just FDR built a dumbass system.


What the Chicago Area teacheres fund lawsuit is about is that the bank was SUPPOSED to be useing that money for safe invesments but apparently put them in high risk securities and morgages that caused people to go bankrupt.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 22 August 2011

Also, i'd point to the NABE as far as the title post goes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/177691-economists-survey-deficit-reduction-should-rely-more-on-spending-cuts



mrstickball on 22 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Thought this email was interesting about people on social security disability which will be out of money by 2017 or earlier. and they are thinking of taking away from retirement which would reduce it more as well even though they work for it forever

Not really.

The Truth is Social Security has no money.

Note during the debt ceiling crisis the first thing Obama said was they weren't going to be able to pay social security.

Once any social security money goes into the sysetm it's used to buy special issue government bonds.

Which are essentially IOUs.

They may use the bankrupting of the IOUS as an excuse to not pay people what they're old.


I don't know if you know anything about the Chicago area, but supposedly all the teachers lost there retirement because the state used it. From what I was told they did not do social security because they had a pension or something. If that is actually what happened, would that be the same as what you mentioned up above? The government issued I.O.U's and did not pay them?

Looking it up, it actually looks to be totally different.  Soical Security benefits should be paid to anyone who put in enough credits to qualify, regardless of how many "IOUs" the fund has... since theoretically you are supposed to be paying in for YOUR benefits, it's just FDR built a dumbass system.


What the Chicago Area teacheres fund lawsuit is about is that the bank was SUPPOSED to be useing that money for safe invesments but apparently put them in high risk securities and morgages that caused people to go bankrupt.


Its scary that FDR build and LBJ expanded this system. It makes no sense that an entity can stand that takes trillions of dollars from people, does not invest it, then gives it to those that paid in. Social Security is essentially like digging a hole and putting the money in it as a means of security.

The worst part is that its screwing over so many people. Payments for SS are barely livable, while any decent pension system pays out multiples more than Social Security with few issues of solvency. Yes, there are cases of the Chicago teachers issue, but that is a small issue when compared to the potential of the entire Social Security system collapsing - that is, having no money and forcing austerity measures which will mean many people (litterally) starve to death. Its a scary thought to know that our system is headed that way in 10 years.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 22 August 2011
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Thought this email was interesting about people on social security disability which will be out of money by 2017 or earlier. and they are thinking of taking away from retirement which would reduce it more as well even though they work for it forever

Not really.

The Truth is Social Security has no money.

Note during the debt ceiling crisis the first thing Obama said was they weren't going to be able to pay social security.

Once any social security money goes into the sysetm it's used to buy special issue government bonds.

Which are essentially IOUs.

They may use the bankrupting of the IOUS as an excuse to not pay people what they're old.


I don't know if you know anything about the Chicago area, but supposedly all the teachers lost there retirement because the state used it. From what I was told they did not do social security because they had a pension or something. If that is actually what happened, would that be the same as what you mentioned up above? The government issued I.O.U's and did not pay them?

Looking it up, it actually looks to be totally different.  Soical Security benefits should be paid to anyone who put in enough credits to qualify, regardless of how many "IOUs" the fund has... since theoretically you are supposed to be paying in for YOUR benefits, it's just FDR built a dumbass system.


What the Chicago Area teacheres fund lawsuit is about is that the bank was SUPPOSED to be useing that money for safe invesments but apparently put them in high risk securities and morgages that caused people to go bankrupt.


Its scary that FDR build and LBJ expanded this system. It makes no sense that an entity can stand that takes trillions of dollars from people, does not invest it, then gives it to those that paid in. Social Security is essentially like digging a hole and putting the money in it as a means of security.

The worst part is that its screwing over so many people. Payments for SS are barely livable, while any decent pension system pays out multiples more than Social Security with few issues of solvency. Yes, there are cases of the Chicago teachers issue, but that is a small issue when compared to the potential of the entire Social Security system collapsing - that is, having no money and forcing austerity measures which will mean many people (litterally) starve to death. Its a scary thought to know that our system is headed that way in 10 years.

Yeah... at the very least they should completely reverse the social security investment law.

FDR made it so that "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities backed by the US government." 

If anything it should be "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities NOT backed by the US government."

Then have some smart investment guy take ahold of it.  Hell, Warren Buffet seems to be feelikg philantropic lately.  Ask him to leave Berkshire Hath and have him invest the nations social security fund.  We'd be running suprluses in no time.

Works for Denmark.

Of course, the US government would be losing a lot of deficit hiding revenue... so i doubt they'd go for that.

 

It's not optimal, but it'd be a helluva lot better then what we have.



mrstickball on 22 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:


Its scary that FDR build and LBJ expanded this system. It makes no sense that an entity can stand that takes trillions of dollars from people, does not invest it, then gives it to those that paid in. Social Security is essentially like digging a hole and putting the money in it as a means of security.

The worst part is that its screwing over so many people. Payments for SS are barely livable, while any decent pension system pays out multiples more than Social Security with few issues of solvency. Yes, there are cases of the Chicago teachers issue, but that is a small issue when compared to the potential of the entire Social Security system collapsing - that is, having no money and forcing austerity measures which will mean many people (litterally) starve to death. Its a scary thought to know that our system is headed that way in 10 years.

Yeah... at the very least they should completely reverse the social security investment law.

FDR made it so that "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities backed by the US government." 

If anything it should be "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities NOT backed by the US government."

Then have some smart investment guy take ahold of it.  Hell, Warren Buffet seems to be feelikg philantropic lately.  Ask him to leave Berkshire Hath and have him invest the nations social security fund.  We'd be running suprluses in no time.

Works for Denmark.

Of course, the US government would be losing a lot of deficit hiding revenue... so i doubt they'd go for that.

 

It's not optimal, but it'd be a helluva lot better then what we have.

Exactly.

The fact is, reforming SS to invest in private entities (e.g. stocks, bonds and other non-governmental securities) would kill two birds with one stone. First, it'd make it solvent. Secondly, you'd essentially be providing a massive multi-trillion dollar stimulus to the economy. That is something that even Keynesians should think was good for the economy :-p



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 22 August 2011
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:


Its scary that FDR build and LBJ expanded this system. It makes no sense that an entity can stand that takes trillions of dollars from people, does not invest it, then gives it to those that paid in. Social Security is essentially like digging a hole and putting the money in it as a means of security.

The worst part is that its screwing over so many people. Payments for SS are barely livable, while any decent pension system pays out multiples more than Social Security with few issues of solvency. Yes, there are cases of the Chicago teachers issue, but that is a small issue when compared to the potential of the entire Social Security system collapsing - that is, having no money and forcing austerity measures which will mean many people (litterally) starve to death. Its a scary thought to know that our system is headed that way in 10 years.

Yeah... at the very least they should completely reverse the social security investment law.

FDR made it so that "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities backed by the US government." 

If anything it should be "The money in social security can only be used to invest in securities NOT backed by the US government."

Then have some smart investment guy take ahold of it.  Hell, Warren Buffet seems to be feelikg philantropic lately.  Ask him to leave Berkshire Hath and have him invest the nations social security fund.  We'd be running suprluses in no time.

Works for Denmark.

Of course, the US government would be losing a lot of deficit hiding revenue... so i doubt they'd go for that.

 

It's not optimal, but it'd be a helluva lot better then what we have.

Exactly.

The fact is, reforming SS to invest in private entities (e.g. stocks, bonds and other non-governmental securities) would kill two birds with one stone. First, it'd make it solvent. Secondly, you'd essentially be providing a massive multi-trillion dollar stimulus to the economy. That is something that even Keynesians should think was good for the economy :-p

Plus, since thefund would be huuuuuuuge.  It would basically be impossible for any halfway decent investment guy to screw it up... it'd be hard even for government to screw up!

But it's one of those things Republicans wouldn't like because it's not getting rid of it or privatising it... and it's not something democrats would like because they'd have to admit there was a problem....

and well, the whole deficit hiding thing.


It's the same reason government doesn't just get out of marriage.  It's not what democrats want, recognition, and Republicans don't want to admit there is a problem with married people getting benefits that committed gay couples can't.

It's funny how compromises are made all the time, but never the easy ones that would actually work.