Imagine if millions of people stopped taking food-stamps, unemployment benefits and medicaid

[cthulu2016]

and instead started paying taxes.

It's called reducing unemployment... the deficit reduction plan for non-sociopaths.

...there is a whole industry built around the promotion of deficit panic. Lavishly funded corporate groups keep hyping the danger of government debt and the urgency of deficit reduction now now now — except that these same groups are suddenly warning against too much deficit reduction. No wonder the public is confused.

Meanwhile, there is almost no organized pressure to deal with the terrible thing that is actually happening right now — namely, mass unemployment. Yes, we’ve made progress over the past year. But long-term unemployment remains at levels not seen since the Great Depression: as of October, 4.9 million Americans had been unemployed for more than six months, and 3.6 million had been out of work for more than a year.

When you see numbers like those, bear in mind that we’re looking at millions of human tragedies: at individuals and families whose lives are falling apart because they can’t find work, at savings consumed, homes lost and dreams destroyed. And the longer this goes on, the bigger the tragedy.

There are also huge dollars-and-cents costs to our unmet jobs crisis. When willing workers endure forced idleness society as a whole suffers from the waste of their efforts and talents. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that what we are actually producing falls short of what we could and should be producing by around 6 percent of G.D.P., or $900 billion a year. Worse yet, there are good reasons to believe that high unemployment is undermining our future growth as well, as the long-term unemployed come to be considered unemployable, as investment falters in the face of inadequate sales...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/opinion/krugman-the-forgotten-millions.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1354885607-Jjys0AIQl5fI3FhblUtB5A&

[phantom power]

1. "the deficit reduction plan for non-sociopaths"

[unblock]

2. "the deficit reduction plan for non-sociopaths"

ROFL!!!!

[gollygee]

3. I like that line too

"The deficit reduction plan for non-sociopaths."

[ProSense]

4. Actually,

"Imagine if millions of people stopped taking food-stamps, unemployment benefits and medicaid"

...it's called increasing the minimum wage to a living wage (stopped taking food-stamps), will always be needed unless the rate is zero (unemployment benefits) and single payer (Medicaid).

That's "the deficit reduction plan for non-sociopaths."

[former-republican]

5. Jobs , up the minimum wage and single payer health care system

Stopping having your job connected to health care would encourage people more to start a small business.

Free trade needs to be stopped or at least make it fair trade .
It's not rocket science how to fix our economy.



just had surgery so sorry if i'm rambling , on some pain meds right now

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. "Free trade needs to be stopped"?

How's that going to happen.

As unpopular as Bush-41 was (and could not be re-elected), his NAFTA plan was approved by a sufficient number of Democrats and signed by Clinton.

Although President Obama successfully campaigned in 2008 to repeal NAFTA, he did not make an effort to do so. And he has since signed three let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements.

By having his Administration participate in the negotiations for the pending NAFTA of the Pacific (TPP), he is indicating that he is going to sign the pending let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement.

The Republicans want so-called "free-trade" agreements. President Obama wants "free-trade" agreements.

If there is a way to stop free-trade agreements, what is it?

[former-republican]

7. I don't have an answer but it kills our jobs here.

both parties want it so I don't think it can be stopped as you said.

[HiPointDem]

8. and obama is reportedly negotiating an even bigger trade bill in secret. the democrats love free

trade.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Who, this guy?

[ProSense]

10. Evidently, some Democrats hate Medicaid

because Krugman's piece doesn't advocate employment as a way to kick people off Medicaid.

In fact, the health care law just expanded it to millions more people...who are among the working poor.

OP title: "Imagine if millions of people stopped taking food-stamps, unemployment benefits and medicaid and instead started paying taxes."

This sounds a lot like Romney's argument.

What on earth does Medicaid and not paying taxes have to do with each other?

[cthulu2016]

11. Medicaid is connected to the recipients income

Unemployed people tend to have lower income.

I don't know what distinction you are trying to draw. I cited the three things I cited because they are the three federal expenses that went up the most when the economy fell apart, and when poverty increased as a result, because they are all driven by people having less money.

Since medicaid costs went up when the economy blew up it is reasonable to think they would be lower if the economy was stronger.

And it also has the benefit of being true.

The bad economy has been very expensive in the greater demands made on what safety net we have. A better economy (which to me includes better employment picture) would dramatically reduce the federal deficit.

As for what sounds like something Mitt Romney would say... there is a thing called irony that I employ sometimes.

If Republicans don't like that the poor don't pay enough income tax then one might want to figure how they could have more income to tax.

[ProSense]

12. That may be

"Since medicaid costs went up when the economy blew up it is reasonable to think they would be lower if the economy was stronger."

...true before the implementation of the health care law, but not anymore. Do you support the expansion of Medicaid under ACA?

Also, I still don't get the correlation between a person receiving Medicaid and not paying taxes, especially as it relates to work?

Just because a person goes back to work doesn't mean they earn enough to pay federal income tax or become ineligible for Medicaid.

When Romney made the claim about 47 percent of Americans, he obviously wasn't talking about the unemployed.

[cthulu2016]

13. Some increase on reliance on medicaid is connected to losing other health insurance

When the unemployment rate goes ups, demands on the medicaid system also go up.

In any event, I am not arguing for medicaid to not be expanded. Only for whatever increased demand arises from higher unemployment to be ameliorated by having a lower unemployment rate.

If it is higher for some other reason, like expanding the program, that's fine with me, of course.

Just noting that unemployment is expensive for government on both the safety net side and the tax collection side, and that a bad economy increases the deficit.

[ProSense]

14. I do agree

"Just noting that unemployment is expensive for government on both the safety net side and the tax collection side, and that a bad economy increases the deficit."

...that unemployment is expensive, but I don't think using Medicaid costs to make the point is accurate.

Here's a perfect example of why the ACA expansion of Medicaid was necessary.

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2011/11/04/gIQAeDvotM_story.htm

Again, reentering the workforce isn't going to mean much for revenue if the jobs don't pay enough. Yes to employment, but the focus has to be on good paying jobs or at the very least a living wage.

[eomer]

18. Yes, of course, good jobs are the aim.

The solution that Krugman proposes is getting the economy going which will result in both more jobs and better jobs. The net result will be decreased safety net costs, increased tax revenues, and decreased suffering. What's not to like?

This is just another way of saying that the deficit isn't causing the recession, the recession is causing the deficit.

[mostlyconfused]

15. "these same groups are suddenly warning against too much deficit reduction"

Who in the world is making that argument?

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. Start democratic cooperative companies!!!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. How about a new WPA to employ millions and fix our infrastructure? President Obama could sell it, FDR

style. How about we put the pressure he's always asking for on him and congress for this?

[AlbertCat]

19. How about a new WPA to employ millions and fix our infrastructure?

Exactly!

Some of those wasteful and useless military contractors could switch over to infrastructure. There're only a billion bridges about to fall down, and an upgrade in the electric grid might be helpful Also a real 21st century train system would be amazing! Our trains are exactly like the 1950's. Europe laughs at us! I think Obama sorta tried this and it fell over and was no fun.... but it's a good idea. Imagine a "ferry-like" train you drove your car onto in, say Atlanta, and then went high speed to Chicago, or DC or NYC.... and then drove it off....

Anyway... the USA is mostly like a Soviet Block country in this century.

[toby jo]

20. What's needed is a serious transference of funds from military to domestic spending.

This would be our generation's WPA.

Literally take the military budget, dollar for dollar, and begin earmarking it for home. Give the men and woman the option of becoming domestic workers instead of soldiers. Make sure they get first dibs on the jobs. Is this really that difficult to idealize? Where's the social engineering?

I've always thought the military contractors would have the hardest time with a shift like this because they'd have to retool. I've always thought they were the ones binding us over to warfare. But maybe you're right. Hell, if we put their backs up against the wall they'll bite.