As a former Ph.D. economics student and a future doctor, very few issues bother me as much as the healthcare system in the USA. It is rife with inefficiencies and abuses and is in great need of reform. And, quite honestly, anyone who has ever taken introductory microeconomics and macroeconomics classes can solve most of our healthcare system's problems.
There are a couple of problems plaguing the healthcare system that can be solved by anyone who understands "barriers to entry". Barriers to entry are obstacles that prevent would-be participants from entering a market. In any market, there are two groups of actors: buyers (demanders) and sellers (suppliers). In the healthcare market, the suppliers need help. And we can fix what ails the supply side through the simple removal of three entry barriers.
In order to become a doctor in the USA, you need to complete 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and then 3-8 years of residency (depending on specialty). At the earliest, a person can start practicing on his or her own when he or she turns around 30. How many other careers have this sort of a strenuous education program?
In addition to the 12+ years of training after high school, we need to look at the educational costs imposed on aspiring physicians. The average college graduate in 2009 left school with $25,000 in loan debt. Medical schools' tuitions and other costs are close to $50,000 annually. So, it is not uncommon for students to leave medical school with over $250,000 in total debt. And, on top of that, recent medical school graduates cannot make enough to pay back those student loans until after residency is completed. So, today's doctors oftentimes have to make student loan payments into their late 30's and early 40's.
Another (although smaller) entry barrier is the specter of malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance. It is not uncommon for doctors in certain specialties (like OB/GYN) to pay $50,000 yearly in malpractice insurance. Granted, insurance rates vary greatly by the specialty and the state, but that does not mean changes should not be made to the system.
(Note: people become physicians because they want to do something great for their fellow human beings; they want to make a difference by helping people and they have the skill-set to do so. They are, in other words, better people than you will ever be. When they make mistakes, I have no problem holding them accountable. But, do not forget that doctors are humans just like you: you probably screw up all the time and I am pretty sure people cut you some slack. So, why shouldn't you give your doctors the same treatment)?
Now that we know the main three entry barriers (training time, costs of education, and malpractice issues) in the healthcare provider market, I can recommend some simple reforms to get more doctors into the healthcare field to meet the ever-increasing demand for healthcare services.
In terms of training time, the answer is to shorten college and medical school course requirements. Specifically, do not make would-be doctors take unnecessary classes during college; additionally, in terms of medical school, perhaps we can cut it down to three years. Of course, the top priority should be to do something about residency. My roommate will be a resident at Stanford, and he says that he will spend half of his 80-hour week on meaningless paperwork. And he has to deal with that for his entire 4-year residency. Why are doctors wasting 40 hours a week on paperwork? They could be learning important medical stuff instead, and, therefore, cut their residencies in half. This change definitely needs to happen.
As for education costs, you can start with opening more medical schools across the USA. Additionally, we could subsidize students (like most western countries do).
In terms of malpractice insurance, it is quite simple: cap the amount of damages a doctor can be responsible for. And, for those few physicians who are truly negligent, revoke their licenses. We do not want bad doctors around doing bad things to helpless people.
The healthcare system in America is too large (about 16% of GDP) to allow to run this inefficiently. And, I might add that our problems are not beyond fixing yet. I just hope that you all have the sense to propose these reforms to your Congresspersons so we can save our healthcare system before it flat-lines.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Republicans and Democrats: Are They Really That Different?
Now that you know my feelings on the major political parties, I will explain to you precisely why both parties' avid followers are idiots. If you are a Democrat or Republican, and you do not like being called an idiot, then you should stop being one. Stop supporting your party (financially and electorally) because, in all probability, "your party" does not represent you.
Republicans and Democrats like to bash each other in the media using violent rhetoric to motivate supporters to action while hoping to enrage and injure the other party's members. Today's political arena features nothing more than a glorified and expensive battle between gangs of adults who suffer from childish volatility. Honestly, when was the last time you saw the political parties put aside differences and meet in the middle? Does anyone besides me believe that Washington, D.C. is more like a high school inhabited by immature, uncooperative idiots than a bastion of problem-solvers and wise individuals?
On a daily basis, reports surface of individuals attacking the other party's members like young children attack each other. "Boehner is in bed with Big Oil and the Tea Baggers" or "Obama is not an American, but he is a closeted Muslim who wants to destroy America". How are statements like these any better than the shrill attacks and sheer gossip of high schoolers?
The lack of maturity on both sides is just one attribute Republicans and Democrats share. Let us look at a few others.
Both parties falsely claim to be the party of the working and middle-class American. In reality, both parties do not give two craps about the typical American; the parties just pretend to care to get your votes. Who did Bush's War in Iraq help? It certainly hasn't helped me (or you) although it may have helped oil companies (they have made well over $100 billion in profits since the war began). This war is just going to cost us middle-class members in the long-run in terms of higher taxes and lasting disdain from the Arab world.
Also, who did the Bush tax cuts help? They supposedly were for everyone. Well, my question is how is it good to cut taxes on everyone while government spending is ballooning? That is not good for the middle class because we now have to live life under the specter of imminent and massive tax increases.
Finally, how have those Wall Street bailouts worked for middle-class Americans? Well, almost 10% of us are still unemployed. It is difficult to get credit to buy houses or cars. We can't pay off credit card and student loan debt due to the recession. Where is our bailout? And, more importantly, why aren't you pressuring your leaders for a bailout?
On the Democrats' side, how exactly was GM's and Chrysler's second bailouts good for you? You are probably not one of the 800,000 UAW members who benefited. You probably are not one of the other 2.5 million people who depend on the auto sector. Think about that: 3.3 million people (1% of the population) got about $90 billion to save their jobs. To those of you who say "GM and Chrysler only got loans and they'll pay them back" I will say that you are an idiot and you should look at this website: http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/.
Also, how does a massive government program like Obamacare help you out when you are going to be taxed to cover the insurance premiums of 25 million people?
To my generation, why do you students so avidly support the Democrats? Have they helped you fund school? No. They helped make student loans so hard to deal with for unemployed graduates. And they haven't stopped the insane increase in tuition (I will explain how they actually created our tuition troubles in another post).
Now that we have quashed both parties' claims that they help middle-class Americans, let us look at both parties' views on the size of our government. Republicans have no problems telling people what to do in terms of morality and safety; they have no problems increasing government spending through population control (Patriot Act), morality wars (War on Drugs), defense spending (Iraq, Afghanistan) and subsidies for constituents (oil companies, pharmaceuticals). Expanding government influence is clearly okay with Republicans.
And the Democrats? Well, they have no qualms about destroying your chances of thriving economically. Think of programs like Medicaid and Social Security, which are nothing less than wealth transfers from workers to non-workers (although, as I have said before, I don't have a huge problem with these programs' goals: the programs are just too big right now). They have no problem with levying unjust taxes (think of the taxes on gasoline which have inflated gas prices) that help crush decent, hard-working Americans like yourselves. Democrats also don't think twice about creating new regulations (think of the EPA's decisions against off-shore oil drilling) that stunt economic freedom. Like the Republicans, Democrats have no problems increasing their influence over your lives.
I hope that you now understand that neither party is on your side. Democrats and Republicans seek the same goals (making their own lives better and increasing their political power) through different means. Democrats and Republicans do not care about YOU, and YOU are an idiot for giving them your money and votes.
We should all be tired of these immature, lying, self-serving individuals who seek to make the world better for themselves and their financial backers; these are not good traits for people in leadership roles. And, yet, we do not hold our leaders accountable. We kind of just accept their corruption. It is a huge joke, America, and the politicians are the ones laughing.
Republicans and Democrats like to bash each other in the media using violent rhetoric to motivate supporters to action while hoping to enrage and injure the other party's members. Today's political arena features nothing more than a glorified and expensive battle between gangs of adults who suffer from childish volatility. Honestly, when was the last time you saw the political parties put aside differences and meet in the middle? Does anyone besides me believe that Washington, D.C. is more like a high school inhabited by immature, uncooperative idiots than a bastion of problem-solvers and wise individuals?
On a daily basis, reports surface of individuals attacking the other party's members like young children attack each other. "Boehner is in bed with Big Oil and the Tea Baggers" or "Obama is not an American, but he is a closeted Muslim who wants to destroy America". How are statements like these any better than the shrill attacks and sheer gossip of high schoolers?
The lack of maturity on both sides is just one attribute Republicans and Democrats share. Let us look at a few others.
Both parties falsely claim to be the party of the working and middle-class American. In reality, both parties do not give two craps about the typical American; the parties just pretend to care to get your votes. Who did Bush's War in Iraq help? It certainly hasn't helped me (or you) although it may have helped oil companies (they have made well over $100 billion in profits since the war began). This war is just going to cost us middle-class members in the long-run in terms of higher taxes and lasting disdain from the Arab world.
Also, who did the Bush tax cuts help? They supposedly were for everyone. Well, my question is how is it good to cut taxes on everyone while government spending is ballooning? That is not good for the middle class because we now have to live life under the specter of imminent and massive tax increases.
Finally, how have those Wall Street bailouts worked for middle-class Americans? Well, almost 10% of us are still unemployed. It is difficult to get credit to buy houses or cars. We can't pay off credit card and student loan debt due to the recession. Where is our bailout? And, more importantly, why aren't you pressuring your leaders for a bailout?
On the Democrats' side, how exactly was GM's and Chrysler's second bailouts good for you? You are probably not one of the 800,000 UAW members who benefited. You probably are not one of the other 2.5 million people who depend on the auto sector. Think about that: 3.3 million people (1% of the population) got about $90 billion to save their jobs. To those of you who say "GM and Chrysler only got loans and they'll pay them back" I will say that you are an idiot and you should look at this website: http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/.
Also, how does a massive government program like Obamacare help you out when you are going to be taxed to cover the insurance premiums of 25 million people?
To my generation, why do you students so avidly support the Democrats? Have they helped you fund school? No. They helped make student loans so hard to deal with for unemployed graduates. And they haven't stopped the insane increase in tuition (I will explain how they actually created our tuition troubles in another post).
Now that we have quashed both parties' claims that they help middle-class Americans, let us look at both parties' views on the size of our government. Republicans have no problems telling people what to do in terms of morality and safety; they have no problems increasing government spending through population control (Patriot Act), morality wars (War on Drugs), defense spending (Iraq, Afghanistan) and subsidies for constituents (oil companies, pharmaceuticals). Expanding government influence is clearly okay with Republicans.
And the Democrats? Well, they have no qualms about destroying your chances of thriving economically. Think of programs like Medicaid and Social Security, which are nothing less than wealth transfers from workers to non-workers (although, as I have said before, I don't have a huge problem with these programs' goals: the programs are just too big right now). They have no problem with levying unjust taxes (think of the taxes on gasoline which have inflated gas prices) that help crush decent, hard-working Americans like yourselves. Democrats also don't think twice about creating new regulations (think of the EPA's decisions against off-shore oil drilling) that stunt economic freedom. Like the Republicans, Democrats have no problems increasing their influence over your lives.
I hope that you now understand that neither party is on your side. Democrats and Republicans seek the same goals (making their own lives better and increasing their political power) through different means. Democrats and Republicans do not care about YOU, and YOU are an idiot for giving them your money and votes.
We should all be tired of these immature, lying, self-serving individuals who seek to make the world better for themselves and their financial backers; these are not good traits for people in leadership roles. And, yet, we do not hold our leaders accountable. We kind of just accept their corruption. It is a huge joke, America, and the politicians are the ones laughing.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Democratic Hypocrisy
If you read my last post on Republican hypocrisy, you will get the feeling that I hate the Republican Party. And you are totally right.
But, I am no Democrat. I freaking hate those people, too.
Democrats like to portray themselves as big-business busters, enlightened leaders, and more-advanced individuals. Well, they're not really any of those things.
You see, Democrats are big fans of big business just like Republicans are. The only difference is that Democrats like different businesses. For instance, they get along very well with the "Big 3" car companies. Why do you think GM and Chrysler got those massive bailouts (that are analogous to Republicans' bailouts of Wall Street)? Well, because the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House; the UAW campaigned heavily to give Democrats control of the government, and the Democrats owed the UAW a favor. Voila! Corporate welfare from and for the left.
Additionally, Democrats like to think they are more educated and advanced than Republicans. (It's crap). They especially become more arrogant with pseudo-studies like this one: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html.
The annoying thing about Democrats' arrogance is that the really smart people typically lean libertarian (not liberal). How do I know this? I looked it up on Mensa's website. (Go to "Freed-M" and you will see what I am saying: http://www.us.mensa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=SIG_List&Template=/customsource/SIGs-p.cfm).
(Note: I know that link does not provide a scientific assessment of high-IQ persons' political leanings. I am not an idiot. I just assumed Mensa did some internal polling that yielded results that could be summarized in that particular assessment of members being libertarian. If you want an actual survey, check out the Triple Nine Society's results: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html. The results there aren't as left-leaning as Democrats might have you think).
Finally, I would like to bring up Democrats' policies. You see, Democrats typically support "nice" policies such as free health care for all, generous unemployment benefits, and grand retirement outlays. Does anyone see a problem with an "educated and enlightened" bunch supporting these programs?
I do. The problem with those programs is that the goals of those programs are essentially anti-evolutionary. Isn't it amazing that "smart" people like Democrats largely accept the principles of evolution, yet their practices do not match those beliefs? According to natural selection, sick people should be left to die and the unemployed should be left to starve (and then die); life is all about the "survival of the fittest" after all. Yet the Dems clearly don't practice any of that. So, why is there such a discrepancy between beliefs and practices? You'd have to ask one of them because I am not sure (I have theories, but I will not waste your time with those).
In sum, Democrats aren't as smart or as evolved as they think they are. They suck, just like Republicans do.
But, I am no Democrat. I freaking hate those people, too.
Democrats like to portray themselves as big-business busters, enlightened leaders, and more-advanced individuals. Well, they're not really any of those things.
You see, Democrats are big fans of big business just like Republicans are. The only difference is that Democrats like different businesses. For instance, they get along very well with the "Big 3" car companies. Why do you think GM and Chrysler got those massive bailouts (that are analogous to Republicans' bailouts of Wall Street)? Well, because the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House; the UAW campaigned heavily to give Democrats control of the government, and the Democrats owed the UAW a favor. Voila! Corporate welfare from and for the left.
Additionally, Democrats like to think they are more educated and advanced than Republicans. (It's crap). They especially become more arrogant with pseudo-studies like this one: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html.
The annoying thing about Democrats' arrogance is that the really smart people typically lean libertarian (not liberal). How do I know this? I looked it up on Mensa's website. (Go to "Freed-M" and you will see what I am saying: http://www.us.mensa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=SIG_List&Template=/customsource/SIGs-p.cfm).
(Note: I know that link does not provide a scientific assessment of high-IQ persons' political leanings. I am not an idiot. I just assumed Mensa did some internal polling that yielded results that could be summarized in that particular assessment of members being libertarian. If you want an actual survey, check out the Triple Nine Society's results: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html. The results there aren't as left-leaning as Democrats might have you think).
Finally, I would like to bring up Democrats' policies. You see, Democrats typically support "nice" policies such as free health care for all, generous unemployment benefits, and grand retirement outlays. Does anyone see a problem with an "educated and enlightened" bunch supporting these programs?
I do. The problem with those programs is that the goals of those programs are essentially anti-evolutionary. Isn't it amazing that "smart" people like Democrats largely accept the principles of evolution, yet their practices do not match those beliefs? According to natural selection, sick people should be left to die and the unemployed should be left to starve (and then die); life is all about the "survival of the fittest" after all. Yet the Dems clearly don't practice any of that. So, why is there such a discrepancy between beliefs and practices? You'd have to ask one of them because I am not sure (I have theories, but I will not waste your time with those).
In sum, Democrats aren't as smart or as evolved as they think they are. They suck, just like Republicans do.
Quick Update on EAYNUF Feed
Greetings EAYNUF Feed Subscribers!
EAYNUF has become The Young and the Screwed (http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/). You can subscribe using one of the "Subscribe" buttons on the new TYATS website.
We are truly sorry about all the confusion and hope that you will be back!
TYATS
Republican Hypocrisy
I have decided to write a few short pieces on Republican and Democratic hypocrisy. In this post, I will look at Republicans. I will turn my attention to Democrats in my next piece.
Republicans like to think of themselves as belonging to the party of smaller federal government. They see themselves as being budget masters, free-market acolytes, and great purveyors of moral guidance.
Well, I have news for you, Republican-backers: your party is full of crap.
Under Bush, Republicans started two wars, created an unfunded governmental liability in Medicare Part D (as I said in my last post), and substantially lowered taxes on super-rich people. These awful fiscal policies led to an increase in the public debt by $5 trillion in less than 8 years. And then Republicans have the gall to claim to be the party of a smaller and balanced-budget federal government? My butt.
In terms of free-market economics, the Republicans also suck. They bailed out banks in 2008, they gave pharmaceutical companies a gimme in terms of Medicare Part D, they granted big oil companies $4 billion annually in tax breaks and subsidies, and they managed to remove all bankruptcy protections from student loans as a service to investors in student-loan-backed securities (they exist and are called "SLABS". See: http://www.economywatch.com/finance/high-finance/slabs-student-loan-asset-backed-securities.html).
On the moral front, the Republicans failed to do anything they promised: they did not ban gay marriage, they did not overturn Roe v. Wade, and they have not won the War on Drugs. Additionally, they constantly impede any chances of expanding healthcare for everyone, increasing aid for the needy, and funding our education system. Not to mention the shortcomings in their own lives including adultery (Gingrich, Giuliani), pregnancies before marriage (Palin), and substance abuse (Bush, McCain). It is ridiculous for them to lecture anyone on morality when they cannot and do not follow their own advice.
It really is no wonder young people hate current Republicans. They're hypocritical, greedy, moronic jackasses who strive to make the world better for one group of people: themselves.
Republicans like to think of themselves as belonging to the party of smaller federal government. They see themselves as being budget masters, free-market acolytes, and great purveyors of moral guidance.
Well, I have news for you, Republican-backers: your party is full of crap.
Under Bush, Republicans started two wars, created an unfunded governmental liability in Medicare Part D (as I said in my last post), and substantially lowered taxes on super-rich people. These awful fiscal policies led to an increase in the public debt by $5 trillion in less than 8 years. And then Republicans have the gall to claim to be the party of a smaller and balanced-budget federal government? My butt.
In terms of free-market economics, the Republicans also suck. They bailed out banks in 2008, they gave pharmaceutical companies a gimme in terms of Medicare Part D, they granted big oil companies $4 billion annually in tax breaks and subsidies, and they managed to remove all bankruptcy protections from student loans as a service to investors in student-loan-backed securities (they exist and are called "SLABS". See: http://www.economywatch.com/finance/high-finance/slabs-student-loan-asset-backed-securities.html).
On the moral front, the Republicans failed to do anything they promised: they did not ban gay marriage, they did not overturn Roe v. Wade, and they have not won the War on Drugs. Additionally, they constantly impede any chances of expanding healthcare for everyone, increasing aid for the needy, and funding our education system. Not to mention the shortcomings in their own lives including adultery (Gingrich, Giuliani), pregnancies before marriage (Palin), and substance abuse (Bush, McCain). It is ridiculous for them to lecture anyone on morality when they cannot and do not follow their own advice.
It really is no wonder young people hate current Republicans. They're hypocritical, greedy, moronic jackasses who strive to make the world better for one group of people: themselves.
Higher Taxes + Inflation = A Huge Problem for Middle Class Americans
I was reading Paul Krugman's blog when I came across an article he published a few days ago titled "Let's Take a Hike". In this article (access it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=paul%20krugman&st=cse#), Dr. Krugman bashed the most-recent Republican plan (the Ryan plan) to deal with the country's horrific public deficit and debt problems.
His problem with the Ryan plan was, essentially, that it only dealt with one aspect of balancing the federal budget: cutting spending. Not only does Paul Ryan want to cut spending, he wants to cut entitlement spending and that is unacceptable to Dr. Krugman (I don't see a problem with cutting entitlement spending due to the fact that our entitlements are way out of line. It just seems like Dr. Krugman is protecting himself and his fellow Boomers).
Dr. Krugman believes (and rightly so, in my opinion) that we need to raise taxes to attack the deficit and public debt problems. Specifically, he believes we should repeal the Bush tax cuts and increase the Social Security cap while cutting defense spending: according to some estimates, this program will balance the budget by 2014 and create a surplus by 2021.
I have some issues with his prescriptions, though. First, I do not agree with his assessment that defense spending should be the only target of budget cutting. Defense spending needs to be trimmed down by renting out our overseas bases, ending operations in Iraq, and finishing up in Libya immediately. But, entitlement spending needs to be dealt with as well. It is crazy to think that only our warriors need to have their funding cut while retirees and welfare recipients do not have to pitch in. That proposal is not just at all.
Second, I do not think taxes should be raised immediately (mainly because the economy is still a little wobbly and we need to secure our growth rate with consumption spending). I would prefer to see cuts in entitlement spending and defense spending first, and then an increase in taxes on the wealthy. A small increase in taxes on everyone else should be a last resort after the economy has stabilized. I believe things should go in this order because of the relative rate of return of each type of relief (as I will explain) and due to Krugman's own call for "shared sacrifice".
Entitlements produce very little long-term value for the USA (especially the way they are run now in terms of underfunding issues and excessively large benefits). In order to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the long term, it is necessary to make cuts to those programs immediately; the savings we start making now will compound over the long term, hopefully bringing the programs back to solvency. Additionally, (it may be cruel to say, but it's true) the retirees and the poor who benefit most from entitlements are essentially getting paid to NOT work. They're getting money from the government to get by, and I do not believe they should be exempt from the pain the people who are actually working feel. Entitlement recipients need to share our sacrifices, too. I propose a modest, but immediate 2% decrease in all entitlement benefits: this step will save about $45 billion every year while not crushing the indigent and elderly.
Additionally, we can look at the joke that is Medicare Part D: it is primarily an unfunded liability that was pushed through by a Republican Congressman (Billy Tauzin) who immediately resigned after Part D's passage and is now making $2 million annually working for a pharmaceutical lobbying group. The real stinker about this program is that it does not allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies (thanks to Tauzin) on behalf of enrollees in the program (the elderly): enrollees, and, eventually, Medicare Part D, pay about 58% more for drugs than the VA does. As of 2009, Medicare Part D received about $50 billion in revenue: only $5 billion of that came from beneficiaries. The other $45 billion came from federal and state government payments. This program stinks of government excess and pharmaceutical corporate welfare and should be shut down immediately.
Defense cuts should occur alongside entitlement cuts. Specifically, we spend $60 billion annually in Iraq and we spend an additional $42 billion by running our 662 bases around the world (not including Afghanistan). If we rent out those bases (see: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and_23.html) we could make billions of dollars while saving $60 billion annually by stopping operations in Iraq. That is an additional $100 billion shaved off the budget.
After some substantial cuts have been made to government spending, we need to look at taxing the super-rich. I don't believe everyone knows this, but individual income after the first $106,800 is not subject to the Social Security tax of 6.2%. That cap needs to be removed. Depending on estimates, that would earn the government about $200 billion in extra revenue.
I am skeptical of Krugman's call to raise taxes on the middle class, however. This may be my conspiracy side talking, but I believe we may very well be headed for an intentionally created bout of inflation (as I said yesterday, Bernanke raised his inflation expectation to 2.8% this year, and that is probably optimistic given the awful rise in oil prices). Throwing additional tax burdens on an already cash-strapped middle class seems like a good way to run tens of millions of Americans into the ground like a certain Russian leader once proposed (see: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle125951.html).
(The previous paragraph may sound a bit crazy, but, I am a cynic and I sort of doubt that our leaders have our best interests in mind. That is why I am open to somewhat unconventional opinions on current affairs).
In sum, with the exception of Krugman's unfair request to not cut entitlement spending and his desire to raise taxes on the middle class, I see a lot of good in his plan.
His problem with the Ryan plan was, essentially, that it only dealt with one aspect of balancing the federal budget: cutting spending. Not only does Paul Ryan want to cut spending, he wants to cut entitlement spending and that is unacceptable to Dr. Krugman (I don't see a problem with cutting entitlement spending due to the fact that our entitlements are way out of line. It just seems like Dr. Krugman is protecting himself and his fellow Boomers).
Dr. Krugman believes (and rightly so, in my opinion) that we need to raise taxes to attack the deficit and public debt problems. Specifically, he believes we should repeal the Bush tax cuts and increase the Social Security cap while cutting defense spending: according to some estimates, this program will balance the budget by 2014 and create a surplus by 2021.
I have some issues with his prescriptions, though. First, I do not agree with his assessment that defense spending should be the only target of budget cutting. Defense spending needs to be trimmed down by renting out our overseas bases, ending operations in Iraq, and finishing up in Libya immediately. But, entitlement spending needs to be dealt with as well. It is crazy to think that only our warriors need to have their funding cut while retirees and welfare recipients do not have to pitch in. That proposal is not just at all.
Second, I do not think taxes should be raised immediately (mainly because the economy is still a little wobbly and we need to secure our growth rate with consumption spending). I would prefer to see cuts in entitlement spending and defense spending first, and then an increase in taxes on the wealthy. A small increase in taxes on everyone else should be a last resort after the economy has stabilized. I believe things should go in this order because of the relative rate of return of each type of relief (as I will explain) and due to Krugman's own call for "shared sacrifice".
Entitlements produce very little long-term value for the USA (especially the way they are run now in terms of underfunding issues and excessively large benefits). In order to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the long term, it is necessary to make cuts to those programs immediately; the savings we start making now will compound over the long term, hopefully bringing the programs back to solvency. Additionally, (it may be cruel to say, but it's true) the retirees and the poor who benefit most from entitlements are essentially getting paid to NOT work. They're getting money from the government to get by, and I do not believe they should be exempt from the pain the people who are actually working feel. Entitlement recipients need to share our sacrifices, too. I propose a modest, but immediate 2% decrease in all entitlement benefits: this step will save about $45 billion every year while not crushing the indigent and elderly.
Additionally, we can look at the joke that is Medicare Part D: it is primarily an unfunded liability that was pushed through by a Republican Congressman (Billy Tauzin) who immediately resigned after Part D's passage and is now making $2 million annually working for a pharmaceutical lobbying group. The real stinker about this program is that it does not allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies (thanks to Tauzin) on behalf of enrollees in the program (the elderly): enrollees, and, eventually, Medicare Part D, pay about 58% more for drugs than the VA does. As of 2009, Medicare Part D received about $50 billion in revenue: only $5 billion of that came from beneficiaries. The other $45 billion came from federal and state government payments. This program stinks of government excess and pharmaceutical corporate welfare and should be shut down immediately.
Defense cuts should occur alongside entitlement cuts. Specifically, we spend $60 billion annually in Iraq and we spend an additional $42 billion by running our 662 bases around the world (not including Afghanistan). If we rent out those bases (see: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and_23.html) we could make billions of dollars while saving $60 billion annually by stopping operations in Iraq. That is an additional $100 billion shaved off the budget.
After some substantial cuts have been made to government spending, we need to look at taxing the super-rich. I don't believe everyone knows this, but individual income after the first $106,800 is not subject to the Social Security tax of 6.2%. That cap needs to be removed. Depending on estimates, that would earn the government about $200 billion in extra revenue.
I am skeptical of Krugman's call to raise taxes on the middle class, however. This may be my conspiracy side talking, but I believe we may very well be headed for an intentionally created bout of inflation (as I said yesterday, Bernanke raised his inflation expectation to 2.8% this year, and that is probably optimistic given the awful rise in oil prices). Throwing additional tax burdens on an already cash-strapped middle class seems like a good way to run tens of millions of Americans into the ground like a certain Russian leader once proposed (see: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle125951.html).
(The previous paragraph may sound a bit crazy, but, I am a cynic and I sort of doubt that our leaders have our best interests in mind. That is why I am open to somewhat unconventional opinions on current affairs).
In sum, with the exception of Krugman's unfair request to not cut entitlement spending and his desire to raise taxes on the middle class, I see a lot of good in his plan.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Notes About Your Author and His Intellectual Support for Public Funding of Higher Education Tuition
I just thought I would follow up my previous post with my basic philosophy on education.
Learning multiple disciplines has been one of the great joys of my life. I have a degree in economics, but I also have minors in math, physics, and Asian studies. I also have had the chance to study multiple languages during my study abroad experiences in Japan and South Korea.
All of the aforementioned learning chances came my way because I went to college and made the most of it. These opportunities have made me a better person by training me to think logically, instilling in me a sense of civic duty, and increasing my interest in world affairs. Essentially, I am a better American because I made the decision to go to college.
And that is why I believe college should be heavily subsidized by government entities: good education turns Americans into better Americans. Society in general benefits from having an educated workforce (not just professionally, but also in terms of general citizenship). The government benefits in terms of educating its citizens because educated people tend to be more productive in the economy and more active in politics. The more active in politics people become, the more likely that political outcomes will be more balanced and wise for society at large. And the better political outcomes are, the less necessary it will be to tinker with governmental systems.
To those of you out there who think the USA can't afford to heavily subsidize our universities, I say "poppycock". Between all levels of government, the USA spends about $6 trillion annually (that is about 40% of GDP). Australia, which has a reasonably-subsidized higher education system, has a government that spends about $354 billion out of $1.2 trillion; that means 32% of Australia's GDP comes from government spending (much less than in the USA). And, yet, the Aussies still have enough money to help citizens pay for college*, basic health care, and a respectable military.
This information makes me ask: what is wrong with us for tolerating our government's negligence?
*I should note the average Aussie does graduate with about $17,000 of debt (which is still considerably less than Americans' $25,000 in student debt) but he or she can count on getting a much higher starting salary than an American; so, Aussies have a much better chance of paying of their student debt faster.
Learning multiple disciplines has been one of the great joys of my life. I have a degree in economics, but I also have minors in math, physics, and Asian studies. I also have had the chance to study multiple languages during my study abroad experiences in Japan and South Korea.
All of the aforementioned learning chances came my way because I went to college and made the most of it. These opportunities have made me a better person by training me to think logically, instilling in me a sense of civic duty, and increasing my interest in world affairs. Essentially, I am a better American because I made the decision to go to college.
And that is why I believe college should be heavily subsidized by government entities: good education turns Americans into better Americans. Society in general benefits from having an educated workforce (not just professionally, but also in terms of general citizenship). The government benefits in terms of educating its citizens because educated people tend to be more productive in the economy and more active in politics. The more active in politics people become, the more likely that political outcomes will be more balanced and wise for society at large. And the better political outcomes are, the less necessary it will be to tinker with governmental systems.
To those of you out there who think the USA can't afford to heavily subsidize our universities, I say "poppycock". Between all levels of government, the USA spends about $6 trillion annually (that is about 40% of GDP). Australia, which has a reasonably-subsidized higher education system, has a government that spends about $354 billion out of $1.2 trillion; that means 32% of Australia's GDP comes from government spending (much less than in the USA). And, yet, the Aussies still have enough money to help citizens pay for college*, basic health care, and a respectable military.
This information makes me ask: what is wrong with us for tolerating our government's negligence?
*I should note the average Aussie does graduate with about $17,000 of debt (which is still considerably less than Americans' $25,000 in student debt) but he or she can count on getting a much higher starting salary than an American; so, Aussies have a much better chance of paying of their student debt faster.
The College Gamble
For much of the past century, completing a college education was an accomplishment most students would be proud of. Today, college training is mostly a joke. Higher education is, in economics parlance, no longer an investment good (something that will improve future production): it is mostly a consumption good (something that satisfies a current economic want).
To prove that college in the USA is not much of an investment for many students, please read these 21 statistics on college trends: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/student-loan-debt-hell-21-statistics-that-will-make-you-think-twice-about-going-to-college.
I hope that article bothered you as much as it did me. I just would like to note the points that really stood out to me.
First is the insane increase in tuition levels. The general price level has increased 250% (inflation) since the late 1970's (e.g., eggs today are 2.5 times more expensive than they were in 1979). College tuition has increased over three times faster than inflation (tuitions have increased 900% since the late 1970's). This drastic increase in college tuition has led to a total outstanding student debt of almost $1 trillion!
The second issue I had concerns the quality of education students are getting. Only 50% of students have ever taken a single course that made them write more than 20 pages. 32% of students have never taken a course that makes them read more than 40 pages in a week. Crazy, right?
The third problem that really bothered me is that one-third of all bachelor's degree holders end up getting jobs that don't require college degrees anyway. What is the point for millions of people to go to college if they will end up with jobs they could've gotten without going to college? Well, it's just four years of partying and drunken fornication for students (as I will explain), and billions of dollars of revenue for schools' administrators.
The final disturbing fact I found in this article was that 51% of a typical college student's time is spent socializing, while only 7% of his or her time is spent studying. Additionally, at least 35% of college students spent less than FIVE hours studying every week. (How does this not sound like a huge adulthood-postponing party? And, how does this not sound like schools being useless in terms of teaching students and making them work hard)?
It is obvious to me that financing and quality issues need to be addressed immediately in terms of higher education. I really think my GRP idea is a good place to start in terms of combating student debt (if you missed my post on the GRP, read it here: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html). Or, we could just have the federal government totally subsidize university education like many countries do. (I prefer the latter option, but, either one works for me. Under both systems, though, students need to be held accountable in terms of yearly testing and exit exams. We need to be sure that they are actually learning something).
As for reforming the quality of college education in the USA, I believe it starts with lower education. If you need any more proof that the level of education in this country is decreasing, check out this Harvard entrance exam from back in the late 1800's: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf. Honestly, I can only do the math stuff and some of the history stuff. I never learned Greek or Latin. But, that is a reflection on the lower education system. We have lost ground on college applicants from over 100 years ago!
How are we supposed to compete in the global economy when students from China and India study everything they can get their hands on while our students try to avoid studying anything? Additionally, how can we compete when the few responsible students this country has are getting destroyed by predatory financing while foreigners can come here and study at extreme discounts?
I believe these situations are of the highest national priority in terms of preparing the USA for the future. I guess media members and the political class aren't addressing our education system's failures because they will not be around to suffer the consequences of the current issues. Or maybe they're just getting paid off by the few people benefiting from this system (lenders, administrators, and some academics).
One thing is sure, though: our higher education system is not primarily about education anymore. It is about fun and money.
To prove that college in the USA is not much of an investment for many students, please read these 21 statistics on college trends: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/student-loan-debt-hell-21-statistics-that-will-make-you-think-twice-about-going-to-college.
I hope that article bothered you as much as it did me. I just would like to note the points that really stood out to me.
First is the insane increase in tuition levels. The general price level has increased 250% (inflation) since the late 1970's (e.g., eggs today are 2.5 times more expensive than they were in 1979). College tuition has increased over three times faster than inflation (tuitions have increased 900% since the late 1970's). This drastic increase in college tuition has led to a total outstanding student debt of almost $1 trillion!
The second issue I had concerns the quality of education students are getting. Only 50% of students have ever taken a single course that made them write more than 20 pages. 32% of students have never taken a course that makes them read more than 40 pages in a week. Crazy, right?
The third problem that really bothered me is that one-third of all bachelor's degree holders end up getting jobs that don't require college degrees anyway. What is the point for millions of people to go to college if they will end up with jobs they could've gotten without going to college? Well, it's just four years of partying and drunken fornication for students (as I will explain), and billions of dollars of revenue for schools' administrators.
The final disturbing fact I found in this article was that 51% of a typical college student's time is spent socializing, while only 7% of his or her time is spent studying. Additionally, at least 35% of college students spent less than FIVE hours studying every week. (How does this not sound like a huge adulthood-postponing party? And, how does this not sound like schools being useless in terms of teaching students and making them work hard)?
It is obvious to me that financing and quality issues need to be addressed immediately in terms of higher education. I really think my GRP idea is a good place to start in terms of combating student debt (if you missed my post on the GRP, read it here: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html). Or, we could just have the federal government totally subsidize university education like many countries do. (I prefer the latter option, but, either one works for me. Under both systems, though, students need to be held accountable in terms of yearly testing and exit exams. We need to be sure that they are actually learning something).
As for reforming the quality of college education in the USA, I believe it starts with lower education. If you need any more proof that the level of education in this country is decreasing, check out this Harvard entrance exam from back in the late 1800's: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf. Honestly, I can only do the math stuff and some of the history stuff. I never learned Greek or Latin. But, that is a reflection on the lower education system. We have lost ground on college applicants from over 100 years ago!
How are we supposed to compete in the global economy when students from China and India study everything they can get their hands on while our students try to avoid studying anything? Additionally, how can we compete when the few responsible students this country has are getting destroyed by predatory financing while foreigners can come here and study at extreme discounts?
I believe these situations are of the highest national priority in terms of preparing the USA for the future. I guess media members and the political class aren't addressing our education system's failures because they will not be around to suffer the consequences of the current issues. Or maybe they're just getting paid off by the few people benefiting from this system (lenders, administrators, and some academics).
One thing is sure, though: our higher education system is not primarily about education anymore. It is about fun and money.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
America's Disdain for Its Legislators
I just wanted to bring to mind a couple interesting polls recently conducted by Rasmussen Reports. These two polls address Americans' thoughts on our Congressional Representatives and Senators.
The first poll addresses Americans' views on Congress's competence (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/43_say_most_members_of_congress_are_corrupt). Only about 9% of American voters gave Congress a "good" or "excellent" rating; a full 56% of voters gave Congress a "poor" rating. Interestingly, voters like the much-maligned (at least in main-stream media circles) Tea Party more than Congress (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress).
The second poll involves Congresspersons' ethics (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/43_say_most_members_of_congress_are_corrupt). 43% of Americans believe most Congresspeople are corrupt; only 30% doubt that most legislators are unethical .
What I find interesting is that Americans hate the ineffectiveness of their legislature, and we don't believe our legislators are ethical. Despite those facts, we keep voting for many of the same people (by my count, 58 Senators have been in office for more than 1 term; over 38 have been in office over twelve years).
I don't understand why we keep hiring useless and untrustworthy individuals to rule over us. Have we given up hope that Washington, D.C. will one day work on our behalf?
We need fresh and untainted blood in our legislature. Just, decent, and insightful rulers would do wonders for this country. I guess the people we need are too wise to get involved in the soul-destroying snake-pit that is Washington, D.C. So, maybe we just have to wait until the current generation of rulers retires (or dies out) and hope America can survive in the meantime.
The first poll addresses Americans' views on Congress's competence (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/43_say_most_members_of_congress_are_corrupt). Only about 9% of American voters gave Congress a "good" or "excellent" rating; a full 56% of voters gave Congress a "poor" rating. Interestingly, voters like the much-maligned (at least in main-stream media circles) Tea Party more than Congress (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress).
The second poll involves Congresspersons' ethics (see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/43_say_most_members_of_congress_are_corrupt). 43% of Americans believe most Congresspeople are corrupt; only 30% doubt that most legislators are unethical .
What I find interesting is that Americans hate the ineffectiveness of their legislature, and we don't believe our legislators are ethical. Despite those facts, we keep voting for many of the same people (by my count, 58 Senators have been in office for more than 1 term; over 38 have been in office over twelve years).
I don't understand why we keep hiring useless and untrustworthy individuals to rule over us. Have we given up hope that Washington, D.C. will one day work on our behalf?
We need fresh and untainted blood in our legislature. Just, decent, and insightful rulers would do wonders for this country. I guess the people we need are too wise to get involved in the soul-destroying snake-pit that is Washington, D.C. So, maybe we just have to wait until the current generation of rulers retires (or dies out) and hope America can survive in the meantime.
Is the USA Headed for a Bout of Stagflation?
Increasing price levels during a period of economic stagnation sounds too horrible to be true, doesn't it? Well, unfortunately, this horrible economic phenomenon is a reality we Americans may be dealing with soon.
Stagflation, as economists call it, is an increase in the general price level (inflation) during a period of anemic economic growth (stagnation) and high unemployment. Obviously, this definition has some ambiguity to it, but let us see if we can attribute any of these characteristics to today's economy.
Let's start with inflation. Originally, the Federal Reserve believed the 2011 inflation rate would stabilize between 1.3% and 1.7%. Just today, however, the Fed increased its projected 2011 inflation rate to 2.1%-2.8%. Obviously, that's a substantial increase, but it is in the typically targeted rate of 2%-3%.
As for economic growth, the Fed today downgraded its forecast for GDP growth from 3.8% to 3.1%-3.4%. I don't believe that is considered to be anemic, but it certainly isn't all that great, especially given that the Fed has stated the USA will maintain a high unemployment rate of 8.4%-8.7% for the rest of the year.
(Here's the article for all of the aforementioned Federal Reserve forecasts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13213424).
So, in terms of stagflation, the USA may be able to squeak through this deep recession without getting hit by a stagflation crisis.
I would like to point out the role oil prices will play in all of this. While difficult to quantify its impact, it is no stretch to believe that significant oil price increases (it is being said that $6 per gallon is not out of the question)
could push the fragile economic recovery into a stagflation episode. Essentially, rising oil prices will contribute to widespread price increases due to the fact that gasoline is used to transport or produce pretty much everything in the country; these price increases will, in turn, lead to consumers cutting back on expenditures. This decrease in demand will lead to more unemployment and a decrease in GDP growth. It is a vicious circle and I just hope we avoid it completely.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Few Americans Understand that Today's Public Debt Problems Started Decades Ago
I decided tonight to discuss a recent poll conducted by Rasmussen instead of stagflation and Congress. I'll save those topics for tomorrow.
Anyway, the reason I wanted to discuss the Rasmussen poll is because it shows how ignorant the voting American is in terms of government entitlements and welfare programs. Here is the link to the report: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/april_2011/just_23_realize_deficit_largely_due_to_commitments_made_in_1960s_and_70s.
As the article mentioned (and I have made similar points before) today's entitlement problems are the results of previous generations' failures. In 1965, President Johnson ordered the creation of Medicare and Medicaid to provide the poor and the elderly with funding for healthcare. Social Security, created in 1935, was created to be a safety net for poor and down-trodden individuals. These programs have been allowed to gradually evolve into monstrous, $2.7 trillion government behemoths that are crushing working and younger people while essentially making 60 million Americans dependent on the government (see: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/2011/04/usa-today-americans-are-incredibly.html). These entitlement issues are the direct results of our predecessors' lack of leadership and wisdom.
(Note: I do believe these programs have noble goals, but they definitely need substantial restructuring in terms of benefits and funding practices).
What is irritating about our current issues is the fact that these programs have been around for a long time, but, they have not been restructured for the future. As the aforementioned article pointed out, previous generations of leaders (especially those during the late 60's and 70's) have put today's workers in a bind by miscalculating benefits for retirees and welfare recipients and doing nothing to fix those errors. Essentially, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been around for about 50 years (Social Security has been around much longer than that), yet, due to the language of the laws, goals of the programs, and lack of political willpower, they have not been reformed.
The shame is that things did not need to go this far. If small, commonsense reforms (in terms of benefits reductions, age increases, etc.) had been made a few decades ago, I would probably not be writing this post.
An even more-irritating aspect of this report is the lack of understanding on the part of voting-age people. Only 23% understand the substantial destructive momentum the aforementioned entitlements have been gaining for decades. Now, those social programs are incredibly massive; their existence is placing an enormous burden on the backs of hardworking, younger Americans, and citizens do not seem to know who to blame. (It's really simple: blame and punish (financially) those who came before us and did nothing to reign in these government expenditures).
The most irritating part of all this, though, is that the same people who failed to reform these programs will be some of the last ones to benefit greatly from them. I really cannot think of a more unjust outcome.
Given the general public's ignorance and indifference, I do not see a good end to this situation. The only way things change is if people (especially us youths) get educated, angry and proactive.
Anyway, the reason I wanted to discuss the Rasmussen poll is because it shows how ignorant the voting American is in terms of government entitlements and welfare programs. Here is the link to the report: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/april_2011/just_23_realize_deficit_largely_due_to_commitments_made_in_1960s_and_70s.
As the article mentioned (and I have made similar points before) today's entitlement problems are the results of previous generations' failures. In 1965, President Johnson ordered the creation of Medicare and Medicaid to provide the poor and the elderly with funding for healthcare. Social Security, created in 1935, was created to be a safety net for poor and down-trodden individuals. These programs have been allowed to gradually evolve into monstrous, $2.7 trillion government behemoths that are crushing working and younger people while essentially making 60 million Americans dependent on the government (see: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/2011/04/usa-today-americans-are-incredibly.html). These entitlement issues are the direct results of our predecessors' lack of leadership and wisdom.
(Note: I do believe these programs have noble goals, but they definitely need substantial restructuring in terms of benefits and funding practices).
What is irritating about our current issues is the fact that these programs have been around for a long time, but, they have not been restructured for the future. As the aforementioned article pointed out, previous generations of leaders (especially those during the late 60's and 70's) have put today's workers in a bind by miscalculating benefits for retirees and welfare recipients and doing nothing to fix those errors. Essentially, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been around for about 50 years (Social Security has been around much longer than that), yet, due to the language of the laws, goals of the programs, and lack of political willpower, they have not been reformed.
The shame is that things did not need to go this far. If small, commonsense reforms (in terms of benefits reductions, age increases, etc.) had been made a few decades ago, I would probably not be writing this post.
An even more-irritating aspect of this report is the lack of understanding on the part of voting-age people. Only 23% understand the substantial destructive momentum the aforementioned entitlements have been gaining for decades. Now, those social programs are incredibly massive; their existence is placing an enormous burden on the backs of hardworking, younger Americans, and citizens do not seem to know who to blame. (It's really simple: blame and punish (financially) those who came before us and did nothing to reign in these government expenditures).
The most irritating part of all this, though, is that the same people who failed to reform these programs will be some of the last ones to benefit greatly from them. I really cannot think of a more unjust outcome.
Given the general public's ignorance and indifference, I do not see a good end to this situation. The only way things change is if people (especially us youths) get educated, angry and proactive.
USA Today - Americans are Incredibly Dependent on Federal Government Spending
Good afternoon all,
Today, the "USA Today" published a somewhat enlightening article on the role the federal government is playing in our economic livelihood. Essentially, only 51% of all income earned by households last year was through wages and salaries; that is the lowest percentage in the USA's history. Nearly 20% of households' income came through government programs, with nearly 80% of that coming through entitlement and unemployment spending.
The full article can be read here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-26-government-payments-economy-medicare.htm. All in all, I think this is a worrisome trend (similar to problems Greece, Portugal, and Italy are dealing with now).
I will have more to talk about later (in terms of economic stagflation and congressional trash).
Monday, April 25, 2011
Some Young People May Finally Be Getting It
Hi all,
Apologies for not posting an article yesterday. I was unable to write anything due to some brutal headaches I got (they seem to be sinus headaches that evolve into super-migraines/possible cluster headaches). Anyway, I am back to normal so let's get started.
First, I want all of you to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcW83yf0Bhg&feature=player_embedded
I understand that many of my readers are not Republicans (I am not a Republican, either) but what the individuals stated in the video about the country's back-breaking public debt is true (as I have posited numerous times on this blog) and truth is all that matters to me (and, hopefully, to you).
Now, I want you all to read this article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25?link=MW_home_latest_news.
I hope that IMF announcement wakes everyone up. Our fiscal and economic problems are sizable, urgent, and the results of other persons' failures. But, our leaders do not care to fix the country's financial issues (probably because they will not be alive to feel the pain of economic stagnation and fiscal devastation).
And, so, I believe our imminent economic usurpation by China and the nation's fiscal debt problems are why we need to stand united (Democrats, Republicans, leftists, rightists, and everyone else) as a generation. We need to show our leaders that we have no interest in dealing with their screw-ups and that they will be held accountable by us youths.
This current political landscape stinks of partisanship, but, in reality our struggles are much bigger than partisan battles now. Our struggles can be summarized in one basic issue: generational warfare. Our leaders in Washington (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others) like power and money, and they have sold our futures to pad their pockets and increase their political strength. Our parents, grandparents, friends, and neighbors have for decades put these irresponsible rulers into powerful positions. And, now, they all want us to clean up their crap. Yeah, right.
In terms of uniting as a generation, it is fine for us all to have differences (as I have said before, differences are healthy), but we need to search for middle ground. And our middle ground, I believe, involves public debt, entitlement and education reform. Our parents and grandparents could afford the luxury of partisanship, but we do not have the same opportunity. Financially (look at our debt situation) and socially (just watch this video: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4661514/brutal-beating-caught-on-tape/?playlist_id=87287), this country is on the decline. And, the sooner we act, the sooner we can turn this decline into a great upswing.
So, my fellow young Americans, we have work to do; however, our situation is not hopeless. We need to toss aside our parents' partisanship, boot out the nation's failed leaders, and grab our futures. If we do these things, we will be fine. If not, our great country will fade into the dark depths of history.
Apologies for not posting an article yesterday. I was unable to write anything due to some brutal headaches I got (they seem to be sinus headaches that evolve into super-migraines/possible cluster headaches). Anyway, I am back to normal so let's get started.
First, I want all of you to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcW83yf0Bhg&feature=player_embedded
I understand that many of my readers are not Republicans (I am not a Republican, either) but what the individuals stated in the video about the country's back-breaking public debt is true (as I have posited numerous times on this blog) and truth is all that matters to me (and, hopefully, to you).
Now, I want you all to read this article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25?link=MW_home_latest_news.
I hope that IMF announcement wakes everyone up. Our fiscal and economic problems are sizable, urgent, and the results of other persons' failures. But, our leaders do not care to fix the country's financial issues (probably because they will not be alive to feel the pain of economic stagnation and fiscal devastation).
And, so, I believe our imminent economic usurpation by China and the nation's fiscal debt problems are why we need to stand united (Democrats, Republicans, leftists, rightists, and everyone else) as a generation. We need to show our leaders that we have no interest in dealing with their screw-ups and that they will be held accountable by us youths.
This current political landscape stinks of partisanship, but, in reality our struggles are much bigger than partisan battles now. Our struggles can be summarized in one basic issue: generational warfare. Our leaders in Washington (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others) like power and money, and they have sold our futures to pad their pockets and increase their political strength. Our parents, grandparents, friends, and neighbors have for decades put these irresponsible rulers into powerful positions. And, now, they all want us to clean up their crap. Yeah, right.
In terms of uniting as a generation, it is fine for us all to have differences (as I have said before, differences are healthy), but we need to search for middle ground. And our middle ground, I believe, involves public debt, entitlement and education reform. Our parents and grandparents could afford the luxury of partisanship, but we do not have the same opportunity. Financially (look at our debt situation) and socially (just watch this video: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4661514/brutal-beating-caught-on-tape/?playlist_id=87287), this country is on the decline. And, the sooner we act, the sooner we can turn this decline into a great upswing.
So, my fellow young Americans, we have work to do; however, our situation is not hopeless. We need to toss aside our parents' partisanship, boot out the nation's failed leaders, and grab our futures. If we do these things, we will be fine. If not, our great country will fade into the dark depths of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)