The Nation's Financial Condition

[frmanfan]

Just read a good story, that if Medicare spends $1.00 for home-delivered meals to Medicare recipients just released from the hospital, they can save $1.57 on each $1.00 spent. This is like magic. My suggestion is that they get out of the medical field all together and go into the food home delivery business, they will be solvent in no time. It is all so simple.

[MDlaxfan76]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

[MDlaxfan76]

Just read a good story, that if Medicare spends $1.00 for home-delivered meals to Medicare recipients just released from the hospital, they can save $1.57 on each $1.00 spent. This is like magic. My suggestion is that they get out of the medical field all together and go into the food home delivery business, they will be solvent in no time. It is all so simple.

Obviously you exaggerate, but it's exactly that sort of casual dismissal of what actually works that is so stupid in how our partisanship gets in the way of rational policy choices.

We've long known that Food is Medicine, but we ignore it.

“The doctor of the future will give no medication, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

Thomas Edison

We subsidize corn=SUGAR instead...so stupid.

We have food stamps to help poor people not starve, but we are unwilling to bother to ensure those dollars pay for healthy, nutritionally dense food rather than whatever sugar and fat and salt filled garbage looks delicious and fulfills calorie needs cheaply.

It's not that we don't actually know what foods are healthy and nutritionally dense, it's that we don't want to hurt the 'businesses' of those pushing the garbage to us and our kids. It's also not that nutritionally dense, healthy food is actually costly. Using what's on sale at one's local grocery store, a family can easily achieve $3 per serving for dinners that are healthy and nutritionally dense. Food stamps cover Doritos but not a rotisserie chicken because it's 'prepared'. Doesn't matter that grocers use rotisserie chickens as loss leaders so they're often cheaper than actually cooking a chicken yourself, we're too stupid to let food stamps cover it.

And of course, from the far right, how many times do we have to hear 'nanny state' and see people badly obese walk out of a 7-Eleven with super big gulp of Coca Cola or some artificial garish colored Slurpee? Dumb.

Tax added sugar, don't subsidize it. Simple. But here come the lobbyists...

[HooDat]

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security

this is something that smart people like the late Charles Krauthammer have been calling for since the 80's. And if we had listened then, the problem would likely be solved.

We need (needed) to raise the retirement age. When the age threshold was established, it was set to be three years past the average life expectancy! So, people were expected to prudently save enough money to live three years past what was prudent to expect to live. Then, and only then, was the government supposed to step in. It really was insurance you see...

If you tell people when they are 20 that they should expect to receive benefits in their 70's rather than their 60's then they can plan accordingly. But the AARP fought it tooth and nail - they were scared of not getting those members until 10 years later..... No one suggested yanking the rug out from under someone who was 58. You ease in. Tell 40 year olds, their qualifying age is pushed out 2 years. Tell 30 year olds, theirs is pushed out 5 years. Tell 20 year olds 10 - putting their retirement age somewhere in the mid to late 70's as it should be..

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security

this is something that smart people like the late Charles Krauthammer have been calling for since the 80's. And if we had listened then, the problem would likely be solved.

We need (needed) to raise the retirement age. When the age threshold was established, it was set to be three years past the average life expectancy! So, people were expected to prudently save enough money to live three years past what was prudent to expect to live. Then, and only then, was the government supposed to step in. It really was insurance you see...

If you tell people when they are 20 that they should expect to receive benefits in their 70's rather than their 60's then they can plan accordingly. But the AARP fought it tooth and nail - they were scared of not getting those members until 10 years later..... No one suggested yanking the rug out from under someone who was 58. You ease in. Tell 40 year olds, their qualifying age is pushed out 2 years. Tell 30 year olds, theirs is pushed out 5 years. Tell 20 year olds 10 - putting their retirement age somewhere in the mid to late 70's as it should be..

Yup, and some moderate means testing.

My point is simply that you need to look to where the money is actually spent, figure out how to reduce that spending, smartly, which sometimes means spending a nickel to return a dollar ala preventive health spending and food policy.

But don't whine about domestic discretionary spending as if that actually had any chance of being an actual solution to deficits.

Otherwise, you simply gotta tax those who actually have disposable income, and assets. Not cut their taxes under some misbegotten hope and prayer that it will drive greater 'revenue' ie tax collections sufficient to pay for the lost 'revenue'.

[cradleandshoot]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

You make very good points. The only way to cut real spending is in tiny increments. Even at that any government department facing a real cut will scream like a stuck pig. In my world there would be mass rebellion at my plan. I cut everyone strait across the board. These would not be draconian cuts. They would make everybody aware the game was changing. The phrase I have heard over and over again from many corporations is you have to do more with less. It is time the government learn to employ that same philosophy. Do i think fiscal responsibility will ever return to DC. IMO not in a million years. Do do so requires discipline and intestinal fortitude not found among our leaders today. To end with a popular cliche... they can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. That would involve having to do something that would be unpopular with a lot of people.

[MDlaxfan76]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

You make very good points. The only way to cut real spending is in tiny increments. Even at that any government department facing a real cut will scream like a stuck pig. In my world there would be mass rebellion at my plan. I cut everyone strait across the board. These would not be draconian cuts. They would make everybody aware the game was changing. The phrase I have heard over and over again from many corporations is you have to do more with less. It is time the government learn to employ that same philosophy. Do i think fiscal responsibility will ever return to DC. IMO not in a million years. Do do so requires discipline and intestinal fortitude not found among our leaders today. To end with a popular cliche... they can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. That would involve having to do something that would be unpopular with a lot of people.

Again, you gotta go where the real money is, defense and entitlements.

Making folks in SEC or DOE or FBI or HHS or, the Oval Office, scream like stuck pigs over 'tiny increments' simply doesn't get the job done.

[cradleandshoot]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

You make very good points. The only way to cut real spending is in tiny increments. Even at that any government department facing a real cut will scream like a stuck pig. In my world there would be mass rebellion at my plan. I cut everyone strait across the board. These would not be draconian cuts. They would make everybody aware the game was changing. The phrase I have heard over and over again from many corporations is you have to do more with less. It is time the government learn to employ that same philosophy. Do i think fiscal responsibility will ever return to DC. IMO not in a million years. Do do so requires discipline and intestinal fortitude not found among our leaders today. To end with a popular cliche... they can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. That would involve having to do something that would be unpopular with a lot of people.

Again, you gotta go where the real money is, defense and entitlements.

Making folks in SEC or DOE or FBI or HHS or, the Oval Office, scream like stuck pigs over 'tiny increments' simply doesn't get the job done.

What in the world is going on... we never agree this much. I could not be more on board with you on defense. 700 billion plus dollars... and growing just does not make sense. I am a huge fan of having a strong national defense. I am not and never will be a fan of whizz bang fancy equipment that costs too much and is to temperamental for heavy use to begin with.

[cradleandshoot]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

You make very good points. The only way to cut real spending is in tiny increments. Even at that any government department facing a real cut will scream like a stuck pig. In my world there would be mass rebellion at my plan. I cut everyone strait across the board. These would not be draconian cuts. They would make everybody aware the game was changing. The phrase I have heard over and over again from many corporations is you have to do more with less. It is time the government learn to employ that same philosophy. Do i think fiscal responsibility will ever return to DC. IMO not in a million years. Do do so requires discipline and intestinal fortitude not found among our leaders today. To end with a popular cliche... they can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. That would involve having to do something that would be unpopular with a lot of people.

Again, you gotta go where the real money is, defense and entitlements.

Making folks in SEC or DOE or FBI or HHS or, the Oval Office, scream like stuck pigs over 'tiny increments' simply doesn't get the job done.

What in the world is going on... we never agree this much. I could not be more on board with you on defense. 700 billion plus dollars... and growing just does not make sense. I am a huge fan of having a strong national defense. I am not and never will be a fan of whizz bang fancy equipment that costs too much and is to temperamental for heavy use to begin with.

Tiny increments is not perfect... but if you really want to hear some screaming... take a big bite out of the budget

[MDlaxfan76]

It will become "a problem", the moment a Dem takes the White House.

No problem there a Fan. The nation just has to shift gears and tax the nation all the way back to prosperity. It is such a magical formula you can make it happen without cutting one thin dime of spending. Like with Houdini and all magicians... it's just an illusion

So...I agree.

But what would you cut in spending that would actually move the needle?

We've been through the #'s a whole bunch of times on this and predecessor threads, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough discretionary dollars, outside of defense to move the needle. You could go to zero and not get there. So, now you're back to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security...and defense.

Where you gonna cut?

And OBTW, we have massively underinvested in infrastructure...

But, hey, those corporate tax cuts sure were necessary to drive up stock market prices, buybacks, and dividends...

BTW, I do think we could adjust Social Security, and I think we could dramatically re-think healthcare spending priorities to prevention and away from end of life extraordinary care. And we could dramatically re-shape our food system to drive down obesity which is so causal in over 50% of all health care costs (chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, metabolic disorder, joint, some cancer, etc). Stop subsidizing corn=SUGAR production and instead subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables with free access to poor populations as 'Food is Medicine'.

Lots of 'smart' things we could do with we could stop the partisan demonization and actually focus on what really can work.

You make very good points. The only way to cut real spending is in tiny increments. Even at that any government department facing a real cut will scream like a stuck pig. In my world there would be mass rebellion at my plan. I cut everyone strait across the board. These would not be draconian cuts. They would make everybody aware the game was changing. The phrase I have heard over and over again from many corporations is you have to do more with less. It is time the government learn to employ that same philosophy. Do i think fiscal responsibility will ever return to DC. IMO not in a million years. Do do so requires discipline and intestinal fortitude not found among our leaders today. To end with a popular cliche... they can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. That would involve having to do something that would be unpopular with a lot of people.

Again, you gotta go where the real money is, defense and entitlements.

Making folks in SEC or DOE or FBI or HHS or, the Oval Office, scream like stuck pigs over 'tiny increments' simply doesn't get the job done.

What in the world is going on... we never agree this much. I could not be more on board with you on defense. 700 billion plus dollars... and growing just does not make sense. I am a huge fan of having a strong national defense. I am not and never will be a fan of whizz bang fancy equipment that costs too much and is to temperamental for heavy use to begin with.

Tiny increments is not perfect... but if you really want to hear some screaming... take a big bite out of the budget

Tru dat.
But if you don't actually tackle the issues that drive serious dollars (I suggested some such), you never can spend on actual long term investment, and all you're left with is taxing at higher rates wherever you can, meaning the corporations, middle-higher income and wealthy earners. You get Bernie and Warren, or even worse.

[Brooklyn]

the Republican created debt continues to grow:






thankfully, the debt is no longer a national problem because there's a Republican in the White House

[youthathletics]

thankfully, the debt is no longer a national problem because there's a Republican in the White House

Now you are catching on....it does not matter who is in office.

[Trinity]

Why are we cutting interest rates during boom times?

[HooDat]

Why are we cutting interest rates during boom times?

to pump up stocks for the wealthy and the global corporations - why does our government do anything?

[Brooklyn]

thankfully, the debt is no longer a national problem because there's a Republican in the White House

Now you are catching on....it does not matter who is in office.

Now, had there been a Dem in the White House some delusional righties might be inclined to disagree ....

[Trinity]

Fed Chair Powell cited weak manufacturing and business investment data, things Trump and Republican lawmakers said the 2017 tax-cut would jump-start.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fed Chair Powell cited weak manufacturing and business investment data, things Trump and Republican lawmakers said the 2017 tax-cut would jump-start.

A buddy in the construction related industry reported out yesterday that they are doing record business. Heavy in certain geographies. Energy savings projects are a big contributor.....

[Trinity]

There are cranes all over S Florida and we’re sinking. Justice is gone Trump. The Fed. Next Intelligence.

[Typical Lax Dad]

There are cranes all over S Florida and we’re sinking. Justice is gone Trump. The Fed. Next Intelligence.

Not a single shot fired and the country has collapsed.

[Brooklyn]

Dan Pfeiffer
‏
Verified account

@danpfeiffer
Follow Follow @danpfeiffer

The fact that Obama’s last 30 months outperformed Trump’s first 30 months is fact that should be in every story about the economy AND a devastating fact for the supply side dead enders who swear by tax cuts for the rich