WTBSOT Head of GAO says we are screwed

[The Aardvark]

Watch this if you dare.

 

[YOUTUBE]KjZBOCAgR64[/YOUTUBE]

[bassman1956]

Okay.

Obama'a been elected,

What does this mean now?

[Emprov]

 

Okay. Obama'a been elected, What does this mean now?

 

link

 

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Has it really been eight years? Eight years since that fateful Election Night when we all stayed up as long as we could through the dark hours without a president, only to wake up to some of the darkest years in our American history.

If we've learned one collective lesson, it's to never again say "How bad could it be?"

 

That's why the sense of hope that swept Barack Obama into the White House on Tuesday night could be felt around the world, from the celebrations in Kenya about how one of its descendents could be the first black man elected U.S. President to the parties in Europe, Asia, and around America herself.

 

At a time when everything looks so grim, the temptation to grasp at any hope is too good to resist. Obama offered that hope, and largely because of the economic crisis of the past several weeks, he was rewarded with an electoral landslide.

 

A furious rally on Wall Street helped kick off the Obama victory Tuesday, but as the President-elect will soon learn, Wall Street is a fickle mistress. He inherits a set of challenges not seen since FDR: a broken financial system, an ailing infrastructure, a growing environmental crisis, an economically-thrashed public, and two wars.

 

No president, even with an overwhelming majority in Congress like Obama will have, can ever hope to solve all of this. But progress can be made on all fronts. Indeed, just turning in the right direction on some of them would be a success.

On the economy, though, voters expect results.

 

*Obama must solve a financial calamity that requires billions of dollars in spending that the U.S. doesn't have.

*He must address a nation that feels overtaxed, yet is in desperate need of funds to save companies, jobs and homes.

*The President-elect must realign a broken financial regulatory system without adding a crippling new set of regulations.

*He must restore confidence in America's economy in a world that just got sucker-punched by an exported credit crisis that is causing a global recession.

*He must pick a Treasury Secretary under the greatest global scrutiny a President has ever seen, not to mention cabinet posts for Defense, Environment, and even Trade that will take on strategic importance far beyond their historical legacies.

*Most importantly, he must enact as many of the vital social programs as he can while also cutting the national debt and budget deficit.

 

All of this is a high-wire act to be sure. Obama will face wealthy and powerful opponents who will make beating John McCain seem like an Election Day basketball lay up. Inaction is what Washington thrives on. It's no coincidence that the stock market does best when the government is split between the political parties. This is exactly what Obama can't afford in his first 100 days, or even his first year in office.

 

After eight years of fighting as the loyal opposition and two years of campaigning for this historic win, Obama and the Democrats will finally get their chance to prove their case. That they will benefit from an economic recovery at some point in the next four years is a given.

 

And the stock market has fallen so much that it no doubt will also recover at some point in a first Obama term. So will commodities, and even the recently resuscitated dollar.

 

As he faces the nation in January on Inauguration Day, 76 days from now, Obama will carry the hopes of several previously overlooked constituencies -- blacks, Latinos, youths, foreigners, the jobless and homeless and health-care-less -- along with Wall Street, the rich and comfortable, and even the opposition. The one thing that unites all of these constituencies is economic progress.

 

No doubt his speech will be soaring and inspiring. But once he has made it to the White House, his actions will be measured far more than his words. This historic election will be a milestone in American politics. But Obama's real place in history will measured by whether he actually has the chops to reform and rebuild an economy -- the largest in the world -- gone horribly and irrevocably awry.

[The Aardvark]

 

Okay. Obama'a been elected, What does this mean now?

 

 

This isn't really related to Obama's election. We'd be screwed if McCain had won too. Plain and simple if we don't get spending under control SOON this country will not survive.

[NoirAbattoir]

Problems that need to be addressed:

 

- We shouldn't be paying any interest on our national debt. We're fattening the wallets of private bankers for no reason other than to fatten their pockets.

- Corporatism, and corporate welfare in general, have forced our government to crush the middle-class with the tax burden (not fully taxing the upper class and corporate entities, thereby diminishing the potential pool of tax dollars).

- Keeping the minimum wage at a stand-still for the past 25 years has forced the working class to seek out welfare subsidies such as food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc, etc. All of this, indirectly, is corporate welfare. If we demanded they paid a living wage we would not have to subsidize their payrolls with tax dollars.

- We need to be more sensible about our social welfare programs. We need more "means tested" programs. We need to weed out the leeches. We need to trim the fat from programs.

[King Kashue]

This isn't really related to Obama's election. We'd be screwed if McCain had won too. Plain and simple if we don't get spending under control SOON this country will not survive.

 

And it's not just government spending, maybe not even the most important part.

 

The nation as a whole has a negative savings rate, that can't continue.

 

 

And yeah, it definitely isn't about the most recent troubles, since Walker hasn't been at the GAO since March

[Armchair Bronco]

We'd be in the same position with respect to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid whether Bush, Gore or Kerry had been in the White House.

 

Hell, Bush *tried* to get a discussion about Social Security started, and was blocked -- mostly by Democrats. Then, he turned around and created a huge new entitlement program: the Prescription Drug Benefit program.

 

Politicians with a time horizon of less than the next election are never going to make the tough choices necessary to "fix things up". Most politicians start running for re-election as soon as the last election is over.

 

Yep, we're screwed. And if, like me, you have kids, they're screwed, too.

[ezstep]

It is estimated that Mary Landrieu spent $10million to get reelected, which she won (last reporting) by 51%-49%. Also, another Louisiana favorite, indited William Jefferson, was reelected by the city of New Orleans. He has 18 years and will go a few more, if he is not in prison. Also, Joe Biden won reelection as senator while also winning the vice Prez position.

 

Why do we keep reelecting these idiots? Do we really trust the people who got us into these messes to be the only people who can bail us out of them?

[isaac42]

 

We'd be in the same position with respect to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid whether Bush, Gore or Kerry had been in the White House. Hell, Bush *tried* to get a discussion about Social Security started, and was blocked -- mostly by Democrats. Then, he turned around and created a huge new entitlement program: the Prescription Drug Benefit program. Politicians with a time horizon of less than the next election are never going to make the tough choices necessary to "fix things up". Most politicians start running for re-election as soon as the last election is over. Yep, we're screwed. And if, like me, you have kids, they're screwed, too.

 

 

The only discussion on Social Security that Bush tried to get going had to do with privatizing it.

[Emprov]

 

The nation as a whole has a negative savings rate, that can't continue.

 

I read a few blogs last week that said that Americans were saving, IIRC, between .7 and 1.3% of their monthly income. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[Emprov]

The only discussion on Social Security that Bush tried to get going had to do with privatizing it.

He kept it going for quite a while though and, IIRC, instead of offering up different solutions, people just shot it down as a bad idea. Part of the issue is that nobody wants to seriously discuss how to fix it, it should be a non-issue if it keeps up like this though. If you procrastinate long enough, one of two things will happen: someone else will do it or you won't have to worry about it anymore.

[Armchair Bronco]

 

The only discussion on Social Security that Bush tried to get going had to do with privatizing it.

 

 

My point is that none of our politicians want to allow any kind of discussion relative to Social Security (or Medicare or Medicaid or any of the other entitlement programs).

 

Whether it's partial privatization or reform or whatever of Social Security, all of these topics are pretty much verboten.

 

{censored}, now the politicians are starting to talk about eliminating the our 401K plans so they can get their hands on even more of our money!

[Derek5272]

I'm glad he told me how many zeroes are in a billion and a trillion. I definitely would not have known how big those numbers were if I didn't know how many zeroes to write down!

[philthygeezer]

I'm hopeful. Warren Buffett has about the best record in the world for picking stellar management out a pile of companies. He threw his lot in with Obama and crew, and I'm willing to trust that as much as owning Berkshire stock. Hopefully they keep a running dialogue on proper fiscal management. Munger and Buffett would be a metric {censored}load of good tutilage in exemplary fiscal policy. As economic advisors I think there could be none better.

[Emprov]

He threw his lot in with Obama and crew, and I'm willing to trust that as much as owning Berkshire stock.

Do you own Berkshire??? That's a bit too rich for my blood. And he's a lifelong Democrat, why does everyone find it shocking that he supported Obama? That'd be like being shocked that Bill Clinton cheated on Hilary.

[isaac42]

 

I read a few blogs last week that said that Americans were saving, IIRC, between .7 and 1.3% of their monthly income. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

 

 

That's an improvement. Not long ago, it was negative.

[Emprov]

That's an improvement. Not long ago, it was negative.

If that's the case, I think that it probably had something to do with the current crisis. People probably got freaked out and started putting more away.

[isaac42]

 

He kept it going for quite a while though and, IIRC, instead of offering up different solutions, people just shot it down as a bad idea. Part of the issue is that nobody wants to seriously discuss how to fix it, it should be a non-issue if it keeps up like this though. If you procrastinate long enough, one of two things will happen: someone else will do it or you won't have to worry about it anymore.

 

 

The proposed solutions were simply variations on how much to privatize it, and how. No other solutions were entertained. In fact, a small increase in the deduction is all that is necessary to "save" SS, which the Republicans have been unwilling to discuss.

[isaac42]

 

My point is that none of our politicians want to allow any kind of discussion relative to Social Security (or Medicare or Medicaid or any of the other entitlement programs). Whether it's partial privatization or reform or whatever of Social Security, all of these topics are pretty much verboten. {censored}, now the politicians are starting to talk about eliminating the our 401K plans so they can get their hands on even more of our money!

 

 

Then your point is in error.

[Jugghaid]

I'm hopeful. Warren Buffett has about the best record in the world for picking stellar management out a pile of companies. He threw his lot in with Obama and crew, and I'm willing to trust that as much as owning Berkshire stock. Hopefully they keep a running dialogue on proper fiscal management. Munger and Buffett would be a metric {censored}load of good tutilage in exemplary fiscal policy. As economic advisors I think there could be none better.

 

Actually, I disagree. If I was looing to invest, the Buffet would be at the top of my list. If I was looking to take over a company he would as well.

 

But he's not an economist. And he will readily admit this. He has no idea how to implement fiscal policy on a national level. At all. But he can definitely pick diamond in the rough investments like a mofo.

[Emprov]

 

The proposed solutions were simply variations on how much to privatize it, and how. No other solutions were entertained. In fact, a small increase in the deduction is all that is necessary to "save" SS, which the Republicans have been unwilling to discuss.

 

I think that it goes back to the issue of those who can most afford the deduction aren't the ones who will be most in need of SS.

[Funkee1]

I tried to watch that....... about 2.17 in, my head exploded.

[isaac42]

 

I think that it goes back to the issue of those who can most afford the deduction aren't the ones who will be most in need of SS.

 

 

Could be. Raising the max earnings taxed would make a difference, too, without having that effect. In fact, why not remove the cap entirely? I don't know how much difference that would make, but it would make a difference.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

The proposed solutions were simply variations on how much to privatize it, and how. No other solutions were entertained. In fact, a small increase in the deduction is all that is necessary to "save" SS, which the Republicans have been unwilling to discuss.

 

 

Define "small".

 

It's already 6.2%. That's an enourmous chunk of money, and it comes out of every wage-earner in the country, without exception. {censored} 'em if they can't make it work on that amount. I'll be dead long before I'll ever collect, and I'm sick and tired of paying for everyone else's welfare but my own.

 

There's no excuse for not being able to manage the plan.

[lug]

 

Could be. Raising the max earnings taxed would make a difference, too, without having that effect. In fact, why not remove the cap entirely? I don't know how much difference that would make, but it would make a difference.

 

 

No one would object if the payouts of this "retirement savings plan" had a corolation to what was payed in. Wait, that would actually make it a "savings plan" instead of a "spread the wealth, public welfare" plan.