Let's correct the article:

"...slow economic tuenaround because of massive government investment"

Obama & co. fail to understand that all government monies come from somewhere. Deficit spending is the worst, because it both devalues the currency (a hidden tax on pensions and savings) and costs you interest payments.

These government "investments" are preventing a recovery.

Romer used to be a free-marketer. She sold her principles down the river to get the gig with Obama. Karma's a bitch.

I see that the ruling class is floating a new trial balloon in the NYT this morning: "The economy has structurally changed, and you'll just have to get used to it." Carter tried this exact same line. If there's been a change in the economic structure, it's due to having to hold up the massive weight of government.

And what would it take to cut government spending? I agree with this guy:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JimPowell/2010/08/08/what_would_it_take_to_cut_government_spending/page/full

"She's also going back to the world of academia, where repeatedly failing to come up with practical solutions is often the express bus to tenure"

Friedrich Hayek & Milton Friedman were tenured academics once upon a time. Academia & common sense didn't used to be mutually exclusive.

Hello rats, meet sinking ship.

Pirate Jo is on the money.

I haven't even made my fortune yet, and I'm already thinking about how best to protect my assets from increased taxation to support parasitic beneficiaries that are trying to live forever...and do so on my dime. Fuck them.

Special interest lobbies have to be brought to heel.

If I ever get elected, first things to go are social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Our only real hope to get rid of those is to get the population of younger voters terrified that their parents and grandparents are sucking up their future.

And to guilt the parents and grandparents out of voting themselves more benefits at their children and grandchildren's expense.
---------------------------------

I'd start be setting a cutoff age, no one below a certain age collects, or pays for those programs. Then start cutting people off the rolls, I hate to burden the rich unfairly, but people with assets over 300k aren't going to miss social security or medicaid. So they won't collect either...or pay for the programs.

Then I'd start cutting the costs on it. The programs in question will not pay for over say...150k in medical expenses in a one year span. Yes, this means old people will start to die...but news flash, old people are supposed to die of old age. Trying to stay alive forever is amoral. If your family can afford to keep you alive, sobeit, but no individual has a right to every other taxpayers dime ad infinitum to extend their life.

We have to start dealing with death as a fact of life, Americans have enjoyed life so much over the years, we've shunted death off to one side, set it away, hidden it from ourselves and tried not to think about it, to postpone it, to prevent it, and when we can't do that, we bury our morgues in basements and do our best to avoid any contact with it. I think our ancestors would mock modern Americans as cowards for that.

We need to face the harsh and brutal reality, and allow the natural course to come to pass, instead of trying to keep our oldest and sickest alive forever, we need to increase our willingness to use hospice care, and simply make our old as comfortable as possible as they pass on.

Once that measure is passed, the rolls can start to shrink on their own as nature takes its course.

Americans would have the option to make part of their income untaxable via a government INSURED retirement account. Example: Johnny gets his first job at McDonalds at a wage that makes him 10k per year. He has the option to make any percentage he likes untaxable, so if he chooses 10%, he is only taxed on 9k per year, while the untaxed sum goes into a bank account insured by the FDIC, a trust or roth of sorts, which he will not be eligible to recieve until he retires. However, when he retires, the entirety is his tax free to use as he likes for the rest of his life, if he wants to bet it all on black 23 in vegas, if he wants to life frugally, that is also his choice.

The benefits from this are enormous, banks increase their ability to make loans which mean mnore small business startus, government collects increased tax revenue on investments, bank profits, and successful startups (and their employees wages) More jobs means more demand which means more growth.

The possibilities are not unlimited, but they might as well be.

YES there would be some pain to the process, but that cannot be avoided.

So much yet to do, and I wonder if it can be done at all, as things are today.

I'm right there with you, Robert. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars on heart surgeries and organ transplants for 75-year-olds? Come on, spend your own money that way if you want, but to expect the taxpayers to cover it?

I am currently griped by two things regarding the entitlements discussion. One, CNN put out an article last Friday saying that although Social Security is now paying out more in benefits than it receives via payroll taxes, the trust fund won't run out until 2037. So, Robert, say I owe you $10,000 out of my savings account. My savings account is empty, but my checking account owes it $10,000. Lo and behold, my checking account is empty too, and I am living on credit card debt! Is that any way of saying your $10,000 is backed by a "trust fund?" I despise that kind of misleading journalism. As soon as anyone reads that, they're going to think it's nothing they have to worry about for 27 more years.

The second thing that gripes me is the old people screaming about wanting back what they paid in. Why not just clarify that, and say you want back what you paid in, but you don't give a flying fuck whether anyone else does. Back when the average lifespan started increasing, yet the benefit age never did, where were all you old people then? Back when the government started raiding the trust fund to pay for a bunch of useless shit, where were you? Back when the payments you made started going out the door as soon as they were paid in, didn't it occur to you that the old people back then were spending YOUR future?

So now that it's your turn, you do the same thing as all the greedy old geezers back then. It must be nice to turn 62 and not have to frickin' go to work every day. Why was it that Social Security became the third rail of politics, and to touch it was to die? If any of you old people had an ounce of morality, you'd have ousted any politician who DIDN'T reform the system. Instead, you sat back and let the status quo work for you.

Did it matter to you that your kids and grandkids were going to experience a diminished standard of living, that we'd never be able to retire? Because we can't take care of ourselves and pay for all the debt you racked up, at the same time? Stop asking me why I'm not providing you with grandkids or great-grandkids. Just enjoy your Winnebago and shut the fuck up. I wasn't even born when things started to unravel, and you people did nothing.

I keep hearing people say, 'Don't demonize the seniors! It's the government's fault!' But whose government was it?

If there had truly been an SS trust fund instead of just the bonds and the money going back to the general fund we would be in a lot better place.

We are now so screwed that until we de-fund 80% of the stuff that isn't in the Constitution -- we'll never get back to where we need.

I do believe we need an EPA -- but substantially pared down -- I don't want to drink poisoned water.

We need the DOT -- but again pared to the bone -- Vehicles have minimum safety standards -- but they don't have the right to tell the states the speed limit or the BAC.

There are others as well.

Most of all we need the Federal Leviathan hacked to the minimum that is needed to have a confederation of states.

"If any of you old people had an ounce of morality, you'd have ousted any politician who DIDN'T reform the system."

That argument would have a lot more weight if you could tell us exactly what you are doing to oust any of the current politicians who are not reforming the system.

I have written to my Republican representative in Congress and asked him to stop talking about preserving Social Security, but work towards ENDING it.

He doesn't do what I ask, so I vote for the Libertarian candidate.

I am not one of the people saying, 'Don't touch my Social Security!' It's the people who do who keep the status quo going.

If you can think of more things I could be doing to change the situation, please let me know. I'm afraid that for the time being, I'm outnumbered.