ADVERTISEMENT

Why the coming global recession will be harder to get out of

sglowrider

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 9, 2012
27,431
23,549
113
Tiny Red Dot
The risk of a global recession and crisis in an already fragile global economy is rising, says New York University’s Nouriel Roubini.

Identified ten potential downside risks that could trigger the US and global recession in 2020.

HIGHER RISKS FROM THE US ECONOMY
Many involve the United States. Trade wars with China and other countries, along with restrictions on migration, foreign direct investment, and technology transfers, could have profound implications for global supply chains, raising the threat of stagflation (slowing growth alongside rising inflation).

And the risk of a US growth slowdown has become more acute now that the stimulus from the 2017 tax legislation has run its course.

Meanwhile, US equity markets have remained frothy. And there are added risks associated with the rise of newer forms of debt, including in many emerging markets, where much borrowing is denominated in foreign currencies.

With central banks’ ability to serve as lenders of last resort increasingly constrained, illiquid financial markets are vulnerable to “flash crashes” and other disruptions.

One such disruption could come from US President Donald Trump, who may be tempted to create a foreign-policy crisis (think “wag the dog”) with a country like Iran. That might bolster his domestic poll numbers, but it could also trigger an oil shock.


COMPANIES WILL LIKELY REDUCE SPENDING AND INVESTMENT
Beyond the US, the fragility of growth in debt-ridden China and some other emerging markets remains a concern, as do economic, policy, financial, and political risks in Europe.

Worse, across the advanced economies, the policy toolbox for responding to a crisis remains limited. The monetary and fiscal interventions and private-sector backstops used after the 2008 financial crisis simply cannot be deployed to the same effect today.

The tenth factor that we considered was the US Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policy. After hiking rates in response to the Trump administration’s pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus, the Fed reversed course in January.

Looking ahead, the US Fed and other major central banks are more likely to cut rates to manage various shocks to the global economy.

While trade wars and potential oil spikes constitute a supply-side risk, they also threaten aggregate demand and thus consumption growth, because tariffs and higher fuel prices reduce disposable income.

With so much uncertainty, companies will likely opt to reduce capital spending and investment.



BAIL-OUTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
Under these conditions, a severe enough shock could usher in a global recession, even if central banks respond rapidly. After all, from 2007 to 2009, the Fed and other central banks reacted aggressively to the shocks that triggered the global financial crisis, but they did not avert the “Great Recession.”

Today, the Fed is starting with a benchmark policy rate of 2.25 to 2.5 per cent, compared to 5.25 per cent in September 2007.

In Europe and Japan, central banks are already in negative-rate territory, and will face limits on how much further below the zero bound they can go.

On the fiscal side, most advanced economies have even higher deficits and more public debt today than before the global financial crisis, leaving little room for stimulus spending.

Financial-sector bailouts will be intolerable in countries with resurgent populist movements and near-insolvent governments.



US-CHINA TRADE WAR DESERVES SPECIAL ATTENTION
Among the risks that could trigger a recession in 2020, the Sino-American trade and technology war deserves special attention. The conflict could escalate further in several ways.

The Trump administration could decide to extend tariffs to the US$300 billion worth of Chinese exports not yet affected. Or prohibiting Huawei and other Chinese firms from using US components could trigger a full-scale process of de-globalisation, as companies scramble to secure their supply chains.

Were that to happen, China would have several options for retaliating against the US, such as by closing its market to US multinationals like Apple.

Under such a scenario, the shock to markets around the world would be sufficient to bring on a global crisis, regardless of what the major central banks do.

With the current tensions already denting business, consumer, and investor confidence and slowing global growth, further escalation would tip the world into a recession. And, given the scale of private and public debt, another financial crisis would likely follow from that.

Both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping know that it is in their countries’ interest to avoid a global crisis, so they have an incentive to find a compromise in the next few months. Yet both sides are still ratcheting up nationalist rhetoric and pursuing tit-for-tat measures.

Trump and Xi each seem to think that his country’s long-term economic and national security may depend on his not blinking in the face of a new cold war. And if they each genuinely believe the other will blink first, the risk of a ruinous clash is high indeed.

It is possible that Trump and Xi will meet for talks during the G20 summit in end-June in Osaka. But even if they do agree to restart negotiations, a comprehensive deal to settle their many points of contention would be a long way off.

As the two sides drift further apart, the space for compromise is shrinking, and the risk of a global recession and crisis in an already fragile global economy is rising.






Nouriel Roubini is CEO of Roubini Macro Associates and Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...obal-recession-will-be-harder-to-get-11633578
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KEANER
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
The risk of a global recession and crisis in an already fragile global economy is rising, says New York University’s Nouriel Roubini.

Identified ten potential downside risks that could trigger the US and global recession in 2020.

HIGHER RISKS FROM THE US ECONOMY
Many involve the United States. Trade wars with China and other countries, along with restrictions on migration, foreign direct investment, and technology transfers, could have profound implications for global supply chains, raising the threat of stagflation (slowing growth alongside rising inflation).

And the risk of a US growth slowdown has become more acute now that the stimulus from the 2017 tax legislation has run its course.

Meanwhile, US equity markets have remained frothy. And there are added risks associated with the rise of newer forms of debt, including in many emerging markets, where much borrowing is denominated in foreign currencies.

With central banks’ ability to serve as lenders of last resort increasingly constrained, illiquid financial markets are vulnerable to “flash crashes” and other disruptions.

One such disruption could come from US President Donald Trump, who may be tempted to create a foreign-policy crisis (think “wag the dog”) with a country like Iran. That might bolster his domestic poll numbers, but it could also trigger an oil shock.


COMPANIES WILL LIKELY REDUCE SPENDING AND INVESTMENT
Beyond the US, the fragility of growth in debt-ridden China and some other emerging markets remains a concern, as do economic, policy, financial, and political risks in Europe.

Worse, across the advanced economies, the policy toolbox for responding to a crisis remains limited. The monetary and fiscal interventions and private-sector backstops used after the 2008 financial crisis simply cannot be deployed to the same effect today.

The tenth factor that we considered was the US Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policy. After hiking rates in response to the Trump administration’s pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus, the Fed reversed course in January.

Looking ahead, the US Fed and other major central banks are more likely to cut rates to manage various shocks to the global economy.

While trade wars and potential oil spikes constitute a supply-side risk, they also threaten aggregate demand and thus consumption growth, because tariffs and higher fuel prices reduce disposable income.

With so much uncertainty, companies will likely opt to reduce capital spending and investment.



BAIL-OUTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
Under these conditions, a severe enough shock could usher in a global recession, even if central banks respond rapidly. After all, from 2007 to 2009, the Fed and other central banks reacted aggressively to the shocks that triggered the global financial crisis, but they did not avert the “Great Recession.”

Today, the Fed is starting with a benchmark policy rate of 2.25 to 2.5 per cent, compared to 5.25 per cent in September 2007.

In Europe and Japan, central banks are already in negative-rate territory, and will face limits on how much further below the zero bound they can go.

On the fiscal side, most advanced economies have even higher deficits and more public debt today than before the global financial crisis, leaving little room for stimulus spending.

Financial-sector bailouts will be intolerable in countries with resurgent populist movements and near-insolvent governments.



US-CHINA TRADE WAR DESERVES SPECIAL ATTENTION
Among the risks that could trigger a recession in 2020, the Sino-American trade and technology war deserves special attention. The conflict could escalate further in several ways.

The Trump administration could decide to extend tariffs to the US$300 billion worth of Chinese exports not yet affected. Or prohibiting Huawei and other Chinese firms from using US components could trigger a full-scale process of de-globalisation, as companies scramble to secure their supply chains.

Were that to happen, China would have several options for retaliating against the US, such as by closing its market to US multinationals like Apple.

Under such a scenario, the shock to markets around the world would be sufficient to bring on a global crisis, regardless of what the major central banks do.

With the current tensions already denting business, consumer, and investor confidence and slowing global growth, further escalation would tip the world into a recession. And, given the scale of private and public debt, another financial crisis would likely follow from that.

Both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping know that it is in their countries’ interest to avoid a global crisis, so they have an incentive to find a compromise in the next few months. Yet both sides are still ratcheting up nationalist rhetoric and pursuing tit-for-tat measures.

Trump and Xi each seem to think that his country’s long-term economic and national security may depend on his not blinking in the face of a new cold war. And if they each genuinely believe the other will blink first, the risk of a ruinous clash is high indeed.

It is possible that Trump and Xi will meet for talks during the G20 summit in end-June in Osaka. But even if they do agree to restart negotiations, a comprehensive deal to settle their many points of contention would be a long way off.

As the two sides drift further apart, the space for compromise is shrinking, and the risk of a global recession and crisis in an already fragile global economy is rising.






Nouriel Roubini is CEO of Roubini Macro Associates and Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...obal-recession-will-be-harder-to-get-11633578
I actually agree with most of what Roubini is saying. Right now, the US economy is strong, but clearly slowing. Not "recession" slowing, but slowing. The fact that the German 10-year is at -.34% is startling. Heard a quote the other day that over 10 Trillion dollars world-wide are invested at a negative rate. Wow!!

The tax stimulus did its thing last year, and while I believe in a lower tax environment for everyone (and corporations), we cannot continue to kick the federal deficit can down the road. It is not critical currently, but one day it will be, and there will be hell to pay at that time. Govt spending is totally out of control, by both Dems and Pubs. Unfortunately, I see nothing in the future to address this. The most certain way to lose an election is to reduce spending. It ain't happening.

So, we just go on, spending at an astronomical rate, waiting on Doomsday. I don't know when it happens, but it will. I feel bad for our children.
 
The most certain way to lose an election is to reduce spending. It ain't happening

I disagree with this. I think Americans are open to a sober analysis of the budget deficit. If the argument is framed correctly, it maybe a successful one.

E.g. I'm running as a candidate who will tackle this problem and stop kicking the can down the road, so that your children and grandchildren are not stuck with a lump of coal.
 
I disagree with this. I think Americans are open to a sober analysis of the budget deficit. If the argument is framed correctly, it maybe a successful one.

E.g. I'm running as a candidate who will tackle this problem and stop kicking the can down the road, so that your children and grandchildren are not stuck with a lump of coal.
Well, in a very general sense, most Americans would agree with this, until it hits their pocketbook with a specific change. Reduce defense spending? eliminate thousands of jobs at Boeing, Raytheon, etc. Reduce spending on education? That never works. Reduce entitlement programs? Never work. Infrastructure? eliminate thousands of construction jobs. At this point, where do you start? 20+% of our GDP is in government spending. It is cooked in the books at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
Well, in a very general sense, most Americans would agree with this, until it hits their pocketbook with a specific change. Reduce defense spending? eliminate thousands of jobs at Boeing, Raytheon, etc. Reduce spending on education? That never works. Reduce entitlement programs? Never work. Infrastructure? eliminate thousands of construction jobs. At this point, where do you start? 20+% of our GDP is in government spending. It is cooked in the books at this time.

We don't know? Has it been tried before? I think everyone sacrificing a little for the common good is what patriotism is about.
 
The tax stimulus
I find it interesting how short is the shrift given to Trump's Debt-Exploding Tax Stimulus in terms of "Trump's Economy." Of course the economy is doing well with the biggest stimulus package in history. I'm not convinced the stimulus has played itself out yet but if so and with Trump's Tariff Wars, we could be headed for a tailspin. It would be ironic for Trump and his lying heroism to be his downfall. He brags about the best economy ever and he's about to tank it unilaterally and unnecessarily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: largemouth
I find it interesting how short is the shrift given to Trump's Debt-Exploding Tax Stimulus in terms of "Trump's Economy." Of course the economy is doing well with the biggest stimulus package in history. I'm not convinced the stimulus has played itself out yet but if so and with Trump's Tariff Wars, we could be headed for a tailspin. It would be ironic for Trump and his lying heroism to be his downfall. He brags about the best economy ever and he's about to tank it unilaterally and unnecessarily.

Our democracy with elections always around the corner causes our elected
representatives to think short term.

Such long terms problems as what growing deficits will do to say interest rates and the economy in the future are put aside in favor of what tax cuts will stimulate in the short term.
 
Last edited:
Roubini wasn't the only one wrong about oil prices. Some of the so-called expert traders in 2011 predicted oil would reach $200 a barrel. Roubini was guessing $150.


Frackiing played a big role in jacking up supply and keeping prices down.

Maybe Nouriel should have factored fracking into his analysis?
 
I find it interesting how short is the shrift given to Trump's Debt-Exploding Tax Stimulus in terms of "Trump's Economy." Of course the economy is doing well with the biggest stimulus package in history. I'm not convinced the stimulus has played itself out yet but if so and with Trump's Tariff Wars, we could be headed for a tailspin. It would be ironic for Trump and his lying heroism to be his downfall. He brags about the best economy ever and he's about to tank it unilaterally and unnecessarily.
Do actually believe that it is a revenue problem more than a spending problem?
 
Not it didn’t. Tax revenue in 2018, the first full year after the tax cuts, DROPPED compared to 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-tax-revenue-declined-0-4-in-2018-11550084426
This tells a different story...

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

That being said, all aspects of federal tax revenue increased, with the exception of corporate taxes, which declined 31%. I think most people were in some agreement that corporate taxes needed to come down from the 35% level they were at. Did they need to come all the way down to 21%? I am not sure.

That being said, FY 2018 income taxes and payroll taxes, the 2 largest revenue streams for the govt, did go up when compared to 2017.
 
Not it didn’t. Tax revenue in 2018, the first full year after the tax cuts, DROPPED compared to 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-tax-revenue-declined-0-4-in-2018-11550084426

Interesting. The WSJ article references the calendar year and not the federal FY 18, in which they went up over FY 17.

That said the impact of Trumps cuts weren’t felt for the first few months of FY 18, so calendar year might be the better measuring stick in this case.

I think we can agree that the cuts have had a negligible affect in the deficit though, both articles reflect that.
 
This tells a different story...

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

That being said, all aspects of federal tax revenue increased, with the exception of corporate taxes, which declined 31%. I think most people were in some agreement that corporate taxes needed to come down from the 35% level they were at. Did they need to come all the way down to 21%? I am not sure.

That being said, FY 2018 income taxes and payroll taxes, the 2 largest revenue streams for the govt, did go up when compared to 2017.
FY 2018 revenues were up a paltry 0.5% over FY 2017. Its absurd to suggest that the Trump tax cuts increased federal tax revenues.
 
FY 2018 revenues were up a paltry 0.5% over FY 2017. Its absurd to suggest that the Trump tax cuts increased federal tax revenues.
Yes, as I said, the Corp tax cut did have a substantial impact. All other form of federal tax revenue did indeed go up, even with the cuts. Those crying that the tax cuts put us in to some kind of deficit Armageddon are the absurd ones. Try curbing spending just a little.
 
Yes, as I said, the Corp tax cut did have a substantial impact. All other form of federal tax revenue did indeed go up, even with the cuts. Those crying that the tax cuts put us in to some kind of deficit Armageddon are the absurd ones. Try curbing spending just a little.


The only spending cuts that matter would be those to SS/Medicare. Those two programs face a $100 trillion cash shortfall over the next 30 years.

Everything else has a $16 trillion surplus over that same period.

Yet nobody will even come within a hundred yards of this albatross....instead they squabble over proverbial pennies in the discretionary budget.

The linked report makes a good mockery of both conservative and liberal "fantasy" solutions.
 
Last edited:
The only spending cuts that matter would be those to SS/Medicare. Those two programs face a $100 trillion cash shortfall over the next 30 years.

Everything else has a $16 trillion surplus over that same period.

Yet nobody will even come within a hundred yards of this albatross....instead they squabble over proverbial pennies in the discretionary budget.

The linked report makes a good mockery of both conservative and liberal "fantasy" solutions.
Republicans only care about deficits when there's a Democrat in the White House. Thus, we had tribal Republicans mulishly insisting on austerity throughout the Great Recession, preventing no-brainer infrastructure investments (among many other stupid acts) at a time when the bond market would literally have paid us to borrow the money. But when there's a Republican in the White House, Republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits. Instead, they remind us that they're so eager to exacerbate income inequality that they engage in deficit financing to give huge tax cuts to corporations and wealthy people.

According to Republicans, the richest nation in the world can't afford to help people with their health care or their retirement, but it can always afford tax cuts for the wealthy. This is among the many reasons that decent people should not vote Republican.
 
Republicans only care about deficits when there's a Democrat in the White House. Thus, we had tribal Republicans mulishly insisting on austerity throughout the Great Recession, preventing no-brainer infrastructure investments (among many other stupid acts) at a time when the bond market would literally have paid us to borrow the money. But when there's a Republican in the White House, Republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits. Instead, they remind us that they're so eager to exacerbate income inequality that they engage in deficit financing to give huge tax cuts to corporations and wealthy people.

According to Republicans, the richest nation in the world can't afford to help people with their health care or their retirement, but it can always afford tax cuts for the wealthy. This is among the many reasons that decent people should not vote Republican.
As twenty says above, the only thing that really matters is medicare, medicaid, and social security. Tell me why early retirement ages, as well as full retirement ages, have not increased substantially over the last several decades with those entitlements. When social security was started, there were 10 workers for every one retiree. Now the number is like 3-1, and still going down. People are living 20-30 years on social security and Medicare. That is crazy!! The only reasonable solution to the crisis that looms is to increase eligibility ages. Everything else is just wasted breath.
 
As twenty says above, the only thing that really matters is medicare, medicaid, and social security. Tell me why early retirement ages, as well as full retirement ages, have not increased substantially over the last several decades with those entitlements. When social security was started, there were 10 workers for every one retiree. Now the number is like 3-1, and still going down. People are living 20-30 years on social security and Medicare. That is crazy!! The only reasonable solution to the crisis that looms is to increase eligibility ages. Everything else is just wasted breath.
Bog standard Republicanism: Tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for everyone else. The only reasonable solution is for decent people to stop voting for Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov
Bog standard Republicanism: Tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for everyone else. The only reasonable solution is for decent people to stop voting for Republicans.
Nice answer. For you information, the vast majority of Americans benefited from the tax cuts. Now do you have a civil reply to what I said about raising eligibility ages, or do you just want to argue with everybody?
 
Nice answer. For you information, the vast majority of Americans benefited from the tax cuts. Now do you have a civil reply to what I said about raising eligibility ages, or do you just want to argue with everybody?
My response was both civil and accurate. And it's so amusing to hear Republicans insist that "the vast majority of Americans benefited from the tax cuts." In fact, the vast majority of Americans who received tax cuts got cuts that were so small they didn't even notice them, while the wealthy made out like bandits. I've pointlessly explained this to you before.

I oppose cutting either Social Security or Medicare. We should raise taxes to maintain the current Social Security benefit schedule, and we should reform our bloated health care sector so everyone pays less for health care. But no one who supports tax cuts for the wealthy has standing to bitch about the cost of Social Security or Medicare.
 
Republicans only care about deficits when there's a Democrat in the White House. Thus, we had tribal Republicans mulishly insisting on austerity throughout the Great Recession, preventing no-brainer infrastructure investments (among many other stupid acts) at a time when the bond market would literally have paid us to borrow the money. But when there's a Republican in the White House, Republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits. Instead, they remind us that they're so eager to exacerbate income inequality that they engage in deficit financing to give huge tax cuts to corporations and wealthy people.

According to Republicans, the richest nation in the world can't afford to help people with their health care or their retirement, but it can always afford tax cuts for the wealthy. This is among the many reasons that decent people should not vote Republican.



Well that's continuing to squabble about pennies. Much like the prior debates on deficits. A $1.5T temporary tax cut doesn't move the needle on a $100T structural deficit issue. Most of the tax cut was to corporations to bring corp rates on par with other developed nations. I argued the cost should have been offset with a more progressive cap gains rate hike, but that's all really whistling pass the graveyard in the big picture.

Until there is serious discussion from both parties about how these two programs are reformed, none of it matters. Tax revenue as a % of GDP is in line with the historic trend going back to the 1950s. Discretionary spending is as well. The exception looking forward is only in these programs.... driven by aging demographics and much longer life-spans.

The rest is partisan noise and should be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
My response was both civil and accurate. And it's so amusing to hear Republicans insist that "the vast majority of Americans benefited from the tax cuts." In fact, the vast majority of Americans who received tax cuts got cuts that were so small they didn't even notice them, while the wealthy made out like bandits. I've pointlessly explained this to you before.

I oppose cutting either Social Security or Medicare. We should raise taxes to maintain the current Social Security benefit schedule, and we should reform our bloated health care sector so everyone pays less for health care. But no one who supports tax cuts for the wealthy has standing to bitch about the cost of Social Security or Medicare.
I agree with you about health care. It is a mess. That is not what I am talking about.

Social Security was started in 1935. The life expectancy in the United States in 1935 was approx 62. Full Retirement age was 65. Today, Life expectancy is close to 80. Full retirement age is basically 67. If you can make sense out of that I would love to hear it.
 
My response was both civil and accurate. And it's so amusing to hear Republicans insist that "the vast majority of Americans benefited from the tax cuts." In fact, the vast majority of Americans who received tax cuts got cuts that were so small they didn't even notice them, while the wealthy made out like bandits. I've pointlessly explained this to you before.

I oppose cutting either Social Security or Medicare. We should raise taxes to maintain the current Social Security benefit schedule, and we should reform our bloated health care sector so everyone pays less for health care. But no one who supports tax cuts for the wealthy has standing to bitch about the cost of Social Security or Medicare.


If you read the report I linked.... the proposed blueprint for SS makes no changes whatsoever for beneficiaries in the bottom 40%. It includes a 1% payroll tax hike, and eliminates COLAs for high income retirees. It also slowly increases the retirement age to bring it in-line with increased life expectancy. Fairly rationale ideas, IMO.

The alternative is what we have now....continued delay and delusion. Which will end up requiring a historic level middle-class tax hike in coming decades.


Medicare is the much tougher one. GWB pushed 75% of seniors prescription drug cost onto the back of the Medicare program. A benefit that current retirees never paid for during their working years. To the point now where current retirees only funded about 40% of their expected Medicare benefit. What a deal for them.
 
Last edited:
Well that's continuing to squabble about pennies. Much like the prior debates on deficits. A $1.5T temporary tax cut doesn't move the needle on a $100T structural deficit issue. Most of the tax cut was to corporations to bring corp rates on par with other developed nations. I argued the cost should have been offset with a more progressive cap gains rate hike, but that's all really whistling pass the graveyard in the big picture.

Until there is serious discussion from both parties about how these two programs are reformed, none of it matters. Tax revenue as a % of GDP is in line with the historic trend going back to the 1950s. Discretionary spending is as well. The exception looking forward is only in these programs.... driven by aging demographics and much longer life-spans.

The rest is partisan noise and should be ignored.

Social security is really simple.

Raise retirement age to 70. Raise cap on wages subject to SS tax. Mean test benefits.

Done. None of that should be controversial.
 
Well that's continuing to squabble about pennies. Much like the prior debates on deficits. A $1.5T temporary tax cut doesn't move the needle on a $100T structural deficit issue. Most of the tax cut was to corporations to bring corp rates on par with other developed nations. I argued the cost should have been offset with a more progressive cap gains rate hike, but that's all really whistling pass the graveyard in the big picture.

Until there is serious discussion from both parties about how these two programs are reformed, none of it matters. Tax revenue as a % of GDP is in line with the historic trend going back to the 1950s. Discretionary spending is as well. The exception looking forward is only in these programs.... driven by aging demographics and much longer life-spans.

The rest is partisan noise and should be ignored.
We could guarantee full Social Security benefits for as long as the Social Security trustees claim they can project for less than the cost of Bush 43's 2002 and 2003 tax cuts. That's not partisan noise.

Medicare is a completely different problem. That program's costs are unsustainable not because Medicare is a government program, but because our rising health care costs are unsustainable. You don't fix that problem by shifting the unsustainable burden from the federal government to struggling families. You fix that problem by reforming our health care system, which Republicans obstinately refuse to allow by ruling out everything that's proven to work in every other developed country. That's not partisan noise either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
If you read the report I linked.... the proposed blueprint for SS makes no changes whatsoever for beneficiaries in the bottom 40%. It includes a 1% payroll tax hike, and eliminates COLAs for high income retirees. It also slowly increases the retirement age to bring it in-line with increased life expectancy. Fairly rationale ideas, IMO.

The alternative is what we have now....continued delay and delusion. Which will end up requiring a historic level middle-class tax hike in coming decades.
No, the alternative is raising or eliminating the income cap and modestly increasing the tax rate without cutting benefits.
 
Social security is really simple.

Raise retirement age to 70. Raise cap on wages subject to SS tax. Mean test benefits.

Done. None of that should be controversial.
Raising the retirement age is a terrible idea. It is and should be very controversial.
 
We could guarantee full Social Security benefits for as long as the Social Security trustees claim they can project for less than the cost of Bush 43's 2002 and 2003 tax cuts. That's not partisan noise.

Medicare is a completely different problem. That program's costs are unsustainable not because Medicare is a government program, but because our rising health care costs are unsustainable. You don't fix that problem by shifting the unsustainable burden from the federal government to struggling families. You fix that problem by reforming our health care system, which Republicans obstinately refuse to allow by ruling out everything that's proven to work in every other developed country. That's not partisan noise either.


That's fine too if that's the direction one wishes to go...I'll await the next Democrat that runs on the platform of raising taxes back to 2000 level on everyone.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT