Glenn Hubbard Makes Good Suggestions That Of Course Will Never Be Used in America

haha

haha

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
22,983
Location
Hooverville
Technology stock picks & industry news: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

"America is very close to a destructive tipping point," co-authors Glenn Hubbard and Peter Navarro warn in their new book Seeds of Destruction. "We must change how we conduct our politics and economics...or we will inevitably go the way of all once-great nations and suffer an irreversible decline."
Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, joined Dan Gross and I to discuss the "major structural imbalances" facing America, chief among them being the government's profligate spending.
 
My first step would be to eliminate all government transfer payments and subsidies to people who complain about government spending.
 
haha said:
Technology stock picks & industry news: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

"America is very close to a destructive tipping point," co-authors Glenn Hubbard and Peter Navarro warn in their new book Seeds of Destruction. "We must change how we conduct our politics and economics...or we will inevitably go the way of all once-great nations and suffer an irreversible decline."
Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, joined Dan Gross and I to discuss the "major structural imbalances" facing America, chief among them being the government's profligate spending.
Click to expand...

I don't know what more evidence than our current debt and deficits we to show we are past the tipping point - we've tipped.

I do like his idea of resetting all troubled mortgages to 30 years and the current interest rate.
 
REWahoo said:
Uh oh, somebody called the grammar police... :police:
Click to expand...
I welcome their return. One of the highlights of the late lamented "old board" was Al's grammar help. :)

Ha
 
Gone4Good said:
My first step would be to eliminate all government transfer payments and subsidies to people who complain about government spending.
Click to expand...

Okay. And an equally fair and just as rational corollary: Impound and transfer to the Treasury the entire personal wealth of anyone who says taxes should be higher.

It's not at all hypocritical to urge a change in government policy while living according to the rules currently in existence.
 
Gone4Good said:
My first step would be to eliminate all government transfer payments and subsidies to people who complain about government spending.
Click to expand...

I wish I had that offer 35 yrs ago when they started taking money out of my paycheck.
 
Bikerdude said:
I wish I had that offer 35 yrs ago when they started taking money out of my paycheck.
Click to expand...

Now consider it from the perspective of someone 35 years younger.
 
Hello Al

Thank you for correcting grammar. Please bear in mind, however, that some of the people posting on this website (including me) do speak English as their native language. While we make every effort to be as clear as possible, sometimes we may make an occasional typo / mistake. Thank you for your understanding.

TromboneAl said:
"Dan Gross and me"
Click to expand...
 
We can trim back the near $ 1 Trillion spending (already spent) to track down those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It has taken almost 10 years but we finally found it... a Nuclear Debt Bomb!
 
Ha, people can't resist tinkering, especially when they can use someone elses' money. Especially the public-spirited types who want to Do Something and get into government. How can we fight human nature?
 
Bikerdude said:
They have my sincere condolences.
Click to expand...

And, in no time at all, we come full circle to the very comment you responded to.

We're all in favor of cutting spending, drastically, for programs that benefit other people. But hands off the checks that are coming my way!

Once people start putting their own benefits on the chopping block, then I'll know they are serious about finding a solution, instead of just being part of the problem. And not a moment before.
 
Gone4Good said:
We're all in favor of cutting spending, drastically, for programs that benefit other people. But hands off the checks that are coming my way!
Click to expand...

I take offense in that broad-brush statement. If it applies to you, then make it a personal statement, rather than attaching others to it as you do. If you look up the $ amounts that US citizens have personally and freely donated to causes like the Tsunami, or to Haiti, etc, you have clear evidence against your stance. And even for those who get a tax deduction, it is still money out-of-pocket. I see that as a (an oft-repeated) misrepresentation of what many of us are saying.

Some of us are not in favor of cutting the benefits that we were forced to pay into for many years. I think it is more helpful to phrase it as - would you take the opportunity to eliminate the payments and accept the elimination of the benefits? It's not the same. Obviously.

It has been explained so many times, yet still repeated so often that I must wonder if there is an agenda behind the repetition.

-ERD50
 
Last edited:
Concerning the grammar, note that I was correcting the author of the article who should have known better. How can you become a professional journalist and write "Hubbard joined Dan Gross and I to discuss..."?

For me, when I read that, I find it just as jarring as it would have been had he written "Hubbard joined I to discuss..."

So sometimes I just have to say something. Also, realize that I've just returned from two weeks of driving and seeing signs like "Fer Sale..." and "Sweet Cron" and "DO NOT ENTER" with the "N" backwards.
 
ERD50 said:
Some of us are not in favor of cutting the benefits that we were forced to pay into for many years.
Click to expand...

Young people have the same claim against cutting future benefits (actually their claim is greater, because they are paying more). So who's benefits get cut?
 
Gone4Good said:
And, in no time at all, we come full circle to the very comment you responded to.

We're all in favor of cutting spending, drastically, for programs that benefit other people. But hands off the checks that are coming my way!

Once people start putting their own benefits on the chopping block, then I'll know they are serious about finding a solution, instead of just being part of the problem. And not a moment before.
Click to expand...


Since at this time I get very little direct benefits from the US gvmt, I am willing to give up on some of what is being spent. One of the ones I would like to see dropped are ALL farm subsidies... I will pay the higher price (if there really is one, probably will lower the price). I am willing for them to get rid of the Education dept completely... I will pay the higher local taxes. I am willing for them to reduce SS by say 15% when I start to get it... I am willing for them to get out of the wars that seem to drag on forever.... (I was willing to pay for them at the beginning... but heck, win the dang thing and get out... stop this nation building stuff).... I am willing to pay the full cost of college for my kids... (and probably will have to)..


What are YOU willing to give up so this huge debt does not get passed down to our children and grandchildren??
 
Texas Proud said:
What are YOU willing to give up so this huge debt does not get passed down to our children and grandchildren??
Click to expand...

I've already reconciled myself to the fact that my taxes will go up and my benefits will go down. I don't fight it, and I don't complain about it. It has to happen. And if there were a serious politician who had a serious plan to do that, I'd vote for him or her.
 
Moved thread to the Political Topics area as this thread has taken a strong and unwavering turn toward that direction.
 
Gone4Good said:
Young people have the same claim against cutting future benefits (actually their claim is greater, because they are paying more). So who's benefits get cut?
Click to expand...

From that chart, we in turn paid more than our predecessors. Not sure what your point is other than government keeps steadily increasing the % of money that they collect from us. They seem to think they can use that money more intelligently than we can ourselves.


Admittedly, it is tough to 'take back' promises made and paid for. Just look at the charged level of the public pension threads. It's not something many politicians are eager to take on.

For me, a start at least would be to start winding down the future promises and the future collections. Every policy should require a one-page, understandable to the common man, 'mission statement' of just what it is designed to achieve. I've asked a few times on this forum, and no one has been able to explain just what SS is supposed to do. If you think about it, it's a contrary mess of counter-intuitiveness:

Is SS to provide a 'safety-net' for Grandma?

OK, but why promise payments to people who don't need it? And why collect and pay-out based on a % of salary? The more you make the less help you should need, but the whole system is backwards - the more you made the more you get. The collection system is a combo of 'flat-rate' and 'regressive', the pay-out is steeply 'progressive'. It's a complex mish-mash. Add to that other social programs for the elderly, and who knows what really goes where?

If I were king, I'd completely un-wind SS going forward and privatize it (to encourage saving/education to help keep people off the dole in old age), with a possible government sponsored annuity system to safely spread 'longevity risk'. I'd replace it with a safety net system to provide for those who need it. Why mix the two - it just obfuscates the whole thing?

That's a start.

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
I've asked a few times on this forum, and no one has been able to explain just what SS is supposed to do.
Click to expand...
I think the starting assumption is maybe incorrect: that SS was the product of some kind of deliberate, rational design process. It's so muddled and has been modified so many times that there's no hope of discerning any "design" to it. As you've identified, even in its original incarnation it was conflicted.
With most govt programs, there's little utility in trying to figure out the original intent, it's best just to skip ahead and see the impact and deal with it.
 
ERD50 said:
Not sure what your point is
Click to expand...

My point was that the oft heard argument (and one made by you and eluded to by Bikerdude) that "benefits shouldn't be cut because I paid into the system" is bogus because everyone has paid, or is paying, into the system.

I don't see the need to spare current benefit recipients of means from the chopping block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom