Hey Tea Baggers

[Findog]

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place?

[CosmicCowboy]

First, I don't consider myself a "teabagger" but you probably are arrogantly referring to fiscally conservative people like me.



If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

I support increasing the retirement age for Social Security

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

I'm not over 65, but fully expect to have limited medicare benefits by the time I am. At the very least, it will be only your worst doctors/hospitals that accept it

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

it depends how you define "immediate" , but yes, we need to dramatically cut our defense spending and quit trying to be the worlds policeman.

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

Yes, they need to make the tax cuts permanent. We will spend our money more responsibly than the federal government. We need to balance the budget by cutting expenses, not raising taxes.

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place.

Why the fuck should I take YOU seriously?

[Findog]

Yes, they need to make the tax cuts permanent. We will spend our money more responsibly than the federal government. We need to balance the budget by cutting expenses, not raising taxes.

http://washingtonindependent.com/98956/the-cbo-on-the-bush-tax-cuts

I would favor extending the cuts for two years, then let them expire. If people are serious about cutting into the long-term deficit, you can't solve by just cutting spending or just raising taxes.


"Permanently or temporarily extending all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost income and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law. However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much. As a result, if policymakers then wanted to balance the budget in 2020, the required increases in taxes or reductions in spending would amount to a substantial share of the budget — and without significant changes of that sort, federal debt would be on an unsustainable path that would ultimately reduce national income."

[CosmicCowboy]

It really comes down to what you think the federal governments role in society should be. The answer IMHO is admitting that the government can't and shouldn't do everything and limit the spending accordingly. Flat tax, no deductions, no exceptions. Live within the budget, even if it means cutting entitlements.

[Spurminator]

I would let the tax cuts expire for everyone until we can get a significant chunk of the deficit paid off. I'm not against revisiting tax cuts in the future, but it has to be paired with a reduction in spending.

[balli]

even if it means cutting entitlements.
You can talk all the foreign policy, anti military crap you want, but I'd easily bet you weren't spewing that line before Iraq, and that given a choice, you'd still support a failed effort in Iran.

You supported and left unfinanced 3 trillion dollars in wars. And tax cuts that were enacted without complementary cuts in spending. Go spew your anti-entitlement crap to a crowd that won't call you on your total bullshit.

[DarrinS]

I think raising taxes on everyone right now will really help the economy.

<sarcasm intentional>

[Findog]

I think raising taxes on everyone right now will really help the economy.

<sarcasm intentional>

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way towards curbing the deficits that tea baggers love to complain about. Raising taxes alone to meet current spending would cripple the economy in the long run...but many teabaggers talk about cutting government between 15 and 30%. Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure and about the same percentage of Americans are employed by the government, from the muni to federal level, it doesn't take a genius to see what that would accomplish. We could turn our recession into a full blown depression with 30% unemployment. Republicans sure are good at fucking things up.

[Findog]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.

[CosmicCowboy]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.

That raises 70 billion a year. Big fucking deal. Congress pisses off more than that before lunch.

BTW, Cut it with the teabagger crap. If I'm a teabagger you are the one licking my nuts.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can talk all the foreign policy, anti military crap you want, but I'd easily bet you weren't spewing that line before Iraq, and that given a choice, you'd still support a failed effort in Iran.

You supported and left unfinanced 3 trillion dollars in wars. And tax cuts that were enacted without complementary cuts in spending. Go spew your anti-entitlement crap to a crowd that won't call you on your total bullshit.

Go fuck yourself balli. You are a pimple on the ass of this forum.

[balli]

I am a complete hypocrite. And I know everything I'm saying is complete bullshit and completely at odds with my real positions... but Ima say it anyway. How dare you call my obvious bluff. Go fuck yourself.

And...


:cry:cry I'm not a teabagger!!! :cry:cry

[Findog]

That raises 70 billion a year. Big fucking deal. Congress pisses off more than that before lunch.

.

Supply-side orthodoxy holds that money freed up for the highest tax brackets is money that is available to be pumped into the private sector as opposed to be "wasted" on "inefficient" government programs. But in practice it hasn't worked out that way, the rich do not automatically invest in new business ventures, and Reagan and Bush Pere and Jr gave us record deficits. That $70 billion isn't worth capturing and applying to the deficit when income equality has soared over the past 30 years?

I see a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts as the only way out of this problem; focusing efforts all on one side is not realistic or wise. And the biggies are SS, Medicare and the Defense Budget. Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way towards curbing the deficits that tea baggers love to complain about. Raising taxes alone to meet current spending would cripple the economy in the long run...but many teabaggers talk about cutting government between 15 and 30%. Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure and about the same percentage of Americans are employed by the government, from the muni to federal level, it doesn't take a genius to see what that would accomplish. We could turn our recession into a full blown depression with 30% unemployment. Republicans sure are good at fucking things up.[/QUOTE

[quote]Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure

:lmao

think about that for a minute...You are saying government produces half the goods and services produced in America?

[balli]

Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly shit.
About 7% actually. The teabags think we can solve the deficit without raising anyones taxes if we just starve poor kids, get rid of the national parks and a coherent education policy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Supply-side orthodoxy holds that money freed up for the highest tax brackets is money that is available to be pumped into the private sector as opposed to be "wasted" on "inefficient" government programs. But in practice it hasn't worked out that way, the rich do not automatically invest in new business ventures, and Reagan and Bush Pere and Jr gave us record deficits. That $70 billion isn't worth capturing and applying to the deficit when income equality has soared over the past 30 years?

I see a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts as the only way out of this problem; focusing efforts all on one side is not realistic or wise. And the biggies are SS, Medicare and the Defense Budget. Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly shit.

You are just figuring this out? I MIGHT be for increasing taxes some AFTER they showed REAL progress on the spending reduction side.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree you can't balance the budget by cutting even 100% of discretionary spending. Some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered.

[Findog]

:lmao

think about that for a minute...You are saying government produces half the goods and services produced in America?

Okay, you got me. It's actually around 45 percent.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

[Findog]

You are just figuring this out? I MIGHT be for increasing taxes some AFTER they showed REAL progress on the spending reduction side.

No, I'm not just figuring it out. I'm wondering when the Tea Party types will figure it out, because they want "government spending cut" but then they declare SS, Medicare, the wars and tax hikes off the table. Well, okay then.

[jack sommerset]

I would favor extending the cuts for two years, then let them expire. If people are serious about cutting into the long-term deficit, you can't solve by just cutting spending or just raising taxes.

Sounds like a great idea. To bad Pelosi and the gang took off before making a decision on the Bush tax. Extending them 2 more years might have saved a few dem seats.

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay, you got me. It's actually around 45 percent.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Thanks for the link. Absolutely disgusting. The ticks are almost bigger than the dog.

[DarrinS]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.


Or, don't quadruple the spending of GWB in 2 years.

[DarrinS]

Or, we can be like liberal Mecca, California, and just pay govt employees with IOU's.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, I'm not just figuring it out. I'm wondering when the Tea Party types will figure it out, because they want "government spending cut" but then they declare SS, Medicare, the wars and tax hikes off the table. Well, okay then.

LMAO at you blaming "Tea Party types" for congressional refusal to touch the political third rail of Social Security and Medicare Cuts. Your most "progressive" democrats are just a guilty. They have had a Democrat President and a majority in the House and Senate. I see they didn't do anything except vote for even MORE "free" benefits from the government.

[Findog]

Or, don't quadruple the spending of GWB in 2 years.

Where are you getting your facts from? Fiscal Year 2009 was the last budget authorized by GWB and Congress, it amounted to $3.1 trillion in spending and $2.7 trillion in revenue. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first budget authorized by BO and Congress, it amounted to $3.4 trillion in spending and $2.3 trillion in revenue.

I wasn't a math major in college, but I'm pretty sure $3.1 trillion x 4 = $12.4 trillion.

[balli]

Where are you getting your facts from?
youtube videos he sees in the blogosphere.

[CosmicCowboy]

Where are you getting your facts from? Fiscal Year 2009 was the last budget authorized by GWB and Congress, it amounted to $3.1 trillion in spending and $2.7 trillion in revenue. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first budget authorized by BO and Congress, it amounted to $3.4 trillion in spending and $2.3 trillion in revenue.

I wasn't a math major in college, but I'm pretty sure $3.1 trillion x 4 = $12.4 trillion.

Uhh...and THIS year they just said "aw to hell with it!" and we don't even HAVE a fucking budget. Sweet.

[Findog]

Or, we can be like liberal Mecca, California, and just pay govt employees with IOU's.

California's problems are due to the composition of their tax base. Starting with Reagan's tenure as governor, they voted repeatedly in referendum after referendum to expand entitlements at the state level without a hike in tax rates. That's fine when unemployment is 4 percent, but not now at 12 percent.

[Wild Cobra]

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place?
Because you left out areas that we should cut.

[Wild Cobra]

It really comes down to what you think the federal governments role in society should be. The answer IMHO is admitting that the government can't and shouldn't do everything and limit the spending accordingly. Flat tax, no deductions, no exceptions. Live within the budget, even if it means cutting entitlements.
Dramatic cuts in entitlements is the key. No more Nanny State.

[balli]

Dramatic cuts in entitlements is the key. No more Nanny State.

lol idiotic, fraudulent math. What about the other 90% of the budget, autodidact?

[coyotes_geek]

Came across this a while back. Seems kinda topical for this thread.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

[Findog]

Because you left out areas that we should cut.

I left out discretionary spending that even if eliminated entirely would not solve the problem.

[Drachen]

Where are you getting your facts from? Fiscal Year 2009 was the last budget authorized by GWB and Congress, it amounted to $3.1 trillion in spending and $2.7 trillion in revenue. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first budget authorized by BO and Congress, it amounted to $3.4 trillion in spending and $2.3 trillion in revenue.

I wasn't a math major in college, but I'm pretty sure $3.1 trillion x 4 = $12.4 trillion.

Quick question (I promise I am not trying to make a point, I am genuinely curious). Is it true that the budgetary numbers under the Bush admin did not include war funds and that BO brought the war budget into the federal budget?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Quick question (I promise I am not trying to make a point, I am genuinely curious). Is it true that the budgetary numbers under the Bush admin did not include war funds and that BO brought the war budget into the federal budget?

Yes. But don't bring up the past...!

[jack sommerset]

VwSChAQco44

[Parker2112]

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place?

1. SS wont be there for me. I expect to have to work until I die.
2. see above
3. yes, bring em all home.
4. yes. yes.

Now about me:
A. I consider myself Libertarian.

B. I like the idea of turnover in elected officials, but 1. the movement is already corrupted, and 2. the Tea Party encompasses so many viewpoints, it is completely impotent, outside of ousting Repub incumbents, which is ok by me.

C. Its not really about spending. Its about a select few unelected people printing money out of thin air without congressional oversight or having to answer to the voters. This is where you need to "bone up" on your studies, IMHO, Findog.

[Findog]

Quick question (I promise I am not trying to make a point, I am genuinely curious). Is it true that the budgetary numbers under the Bush admin did not include war funds and that BO brought the war budget into the federal budget?

.3 trillion would be approximately what we spend every year on the wars. I had not heard that before, regarding keeping the wars off the books.

[Findog]

C. Its not really about spending. Its about a select few unelected people printing money out of thin air without congressional oversight or having to answer to the voters. This is where you need to "bone up" on your studies, IMHO, Findog.

So why not let the Bush tax cuts expire in two years if one is concerned about simply printing digital dollars not backed by anything? That would be financing government by taxation instead of borrowing from China.

[Wild Cobra]

lol idiotic, fraudulent math. What about the other 90% of the budget, autodidact?
What do you mean? Isn't that about 1/3rd the budget?

Now I forget, but it's definitely more than 10%.

[Drachen]

.3 trillion would be approximately what we spend every year on the wars. I had not heard that before, regarding keeping the wars off the books.

I just remember them having to seperately vote for war funding every year outside of the federal budget. Then people would attach all sorts of disgusting riders to the war funding bills which no one could not vote for because then they don't support the troops. Then I hazily remember someone saying that BO was putting the war funding into the federal budget for transparency or something.

[Parker2112]

So why not let the Bush tax cuts expire in two years if one is concerned about simply printing digital dollars not backed by anything? That would be financing government by taxation instead of borrowing from China.

The sooner the better.

[Findog]

Then I hazily remember someone saying that BO was putting the war funding into the federal budget for transparency or something.

If that's true, then that restores some of the respect I have lost for him over the past two years.

[Parker2112]

Paul owns Bernanke

NHEXo9fBDDA

[CosmicCowboy]

I just remember them having to seperately vote for war funding every year outside of the federal budget. Then people would attach all sorts of disgusting riders to the war funding bills which no one could not vote for because then they don't support the troops. Then I hazily remember someone saying that BO was putting the war funding into the federal budget for transparency or something.

uhhhh...guys...they don't even HAVE a budget now. Stupid numbers don't mean anything anyway. :lol

[Parker2112]

inflation is actually a disproportional tax on the lower and middle class.

[CosmicCowboy]

inflation is actually a disproportional tax on the lower and middle class.

We have a winner. The rich just demand a higher rate of return on their investments to keep up with inflation. It's the poor slugs paying interest on loans with a fixed paycheck that buys less every month that lose big time.

[Drachen]

uhhhh...guys...they don't even HAVE a budget now. Stupid numbers don't mean anything anyway. :lol

You are right, we havent had a budget for a week. However you might remember that there were days before 7 days ago that happened and had a budget. Those are the days I was talking about. My memory isn't totally shot that I would only "hazily remember" events from a week ago :lol . By the way, to answer the question of how much of the budget is "the big three" (SS, MC, DOD) it's 51.16% for FY2010, or last year's budget (your welcome CC.)

[Parker2112]

We have a winner. The rich just demand a higher rate of return on their investments to keep up with inflation. It's the poor slugs paying interest on loans with a fixed paycheck that buys less every month that lose big time.

well, gawww-dayum.

I'm a winner says CC. didnt see that coming...:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

You are right, we havent had a budget for a week. However you might remember that there were days before 7 days ago that happened and had a budget. Those are the days I was talking about. My memory isn't totally shot that I would only "hazily remember" events from a week ago :lol . By the way, to answer the question of how much of the budget is "the big three" (SS, MC, DOD) it's 51.16% for FY2010, or last year's budget (your welcome CC.)

It wasn't my question. Hows that memory again?

[Drachen]

It wasn't my question. Hows that memory again?

fine i guess, why do you ask? who are you?

Also, my response that you are quoting was in response to your statement about "no budget". This didn't have much to do with my question in the first place and I therefore treated it as a new topic.

[Findog]

What do you mean? Isn't that about 1/3rd the budget?

Now I forget, but it's definitely more than 10%.

Entitlements and discretionary spending, like food stamps, unemployment benefits, the kind of stuff that the right rails against, comprises about 16% of the 2010 budget. SS, Medicare, Defense Budget including the wars, comprises about 51%. Some of those entitlements would probably not get doled out if the unemployment rate wasn't so high. Deficits aren't entirely dependent on government spending.

[CosmicCowboy]

fine i guess, why do you ask? who are you?

Also, my response that you are quoting was in response to your statement about "no budget". This didn't have much to do with my question in the first place and I therefore treated it as a new topic.


By the way, to answer the question of how much of the budget is "the big three" (SS, MC, DOD) it's 51.16% for FY2010, or last year's budget (your welcome CC.

The budget percentage of the "big three" was WC's question, not mine.

[Drachen]

The budget percentage of the "big three" was WC's question, not mine.

Oh sorry, I should have seperated that better. I didn't mean both to be in response to you. That is my mistake.

[101A]

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

Yes

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

Yes.

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

Yes.

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

Yes.

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place?

[Winehole23]

Deficits aren't entirely dependent on government spending.Oh, really? I thought that was part was essential.

[101A]

Entitlements and discretionary spending, like food stamps, unemployment benefits, the kind of stuff that the right rails against, comprises about 16% of the 2010 budget. SS, Medicare, Defense Budget including the wars, comprises about 51%. Some of those entitlements would probably not get doled out if the unemployment rate wasn't so high. Deficits aren't entirely dependent on government spending.


I think plenty of the right are upset about SS and Medicare. Not sure where you get your figures, but here it is in full color. "Other Mandatory" is mostly entitlements: Welfare, Food Stamps and Unemployment. Add it up. Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Other entitlements - get rid of defense COMPLETELY and you still have a problem considering how fast those are growing (and the fact that the 1.2 million soldiers, as well as other defense employees would then need all of those entitlements).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

[Winehole23]

^^^What he said.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, really? I thought that was part was essential.

Keyword: Entirely.

[MannyIsGod]

I think plenty of the right are upset about SS and Medicare. Not sure where you get your figures, but here it is in full color. "Other Mandatory" is mostly entitlements: Welfare, Food Stamps and Unemployment. Add it up. Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Other entitlements - get rid of defense COMPLETELY and you still have a problem considering how fast those are growing (and the fact that the 1.2 million soldiers, as well as other defense employees would then need all of those entitlements).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Yet the defense part is completely ignored by the tea party as is the taxation part.

[Findog]

Oh, really? I thought that was part was essential.

The unemployment rate has jumped considerably in the past two years. That means declining tax revenues to fund government operations. For instance govt revenues for Fiscal Year 2009 were $2.7 trillion. Fiscal Year 2010 they dropped to $2.3 trillion.

[Drachen]

That is why to be meaningful you have to cut DOD, SS, MC, and Unemployment benefits. The chart I looked at for the 2010 fiscal year had those 4 at around 69%. I would say it would have to be something like a 10 year plan where it is a slow roll (cut the budgets for each at 2.5% a year or something like that) out rather than "CHOP" gone. I don't mind the entitlement programs getting some cuts too, but you would have to elminate most if not all entitlement programs just to realize a noticeable drop in deficit.

I guess what I am saying is that ALL spending has to be game.

[Winehole23]

Ok.

[BlairForceDejuan]

I would opt out of Social Security yesterday if I could!!!!

Compound interest > SS

[MannyIsGod]

Are those SS figures that 101 posted meaning that thats the amount SS paid out (along with admin costs) in that fiscal year?

[Drachen]

Are those SS figures that 101 posted meaning that thats the amount SS paid out (along with admin costs) in that fiscal year?

That is the impression that I get.

[MannyIsGod]

I would opt out of Social Security yesterday if I could!!!!

Compound interest > SS

Here's the problem with an opt out. in no way am I buying that people would turn around and invest that money in a retirement benefit. Not any sizable percentage of the population anyway. What would then happen is that society would have an incredible burden placed on it by a retiring population sector and it would end up costing us just as much if not more.

I don't buy that people would be more responsible with that money when they obviously aren't doing so at the moment with the money they have.

[coyotes_geek]

Are those SS figures that 101 posted meaning that thats the amount SS paid out (along with admin costs) in that fiscal year?

Yes.

[Drachen]

Here's the problem with an opt out. in no way am I buying that people would turn around and invest that money in a retirement benefit. Not any sizable percentage of the population anyway. What would then happen is that society would have an incredible burden placed on it by a retiring population sector and it would end up costing us just as much if not more.

I don't buy that people would be more responsible with that money when they obviously aren't doing so at the moment with the money they have.


I agree with this.

Maybe make it compulsory that each person has to save X percentage of dollars/year.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree with this.

Maybe make it compulsory that each person has to save X percentage of dollars/year.

The compulsory saving mechanism is already in place. The problem is that the money gets funneled into the giant SS ponzi scheme. IMO a better solution would be to just take individuals SS contributions, buy treasury notes in that individual's name and leave the money in a personalized account. It achieves the mandatory savings and puts the money in the hands of the individual, not the government.

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul wants to turn Medicare into catastrophe insurance, with a $2000 deductible, and, but he didn't mention it, I bet a high percentage co-pays.

"I don't buy that people would be more responsible with that money"

That's exactly why there is a unamimous consensus across all industrial countries to have national, forced public pension payroll deductions.

That's the way a strong public option would be financed. Everybody pays from the payroll/income, and everybody is covered, no questions asked in the ER, nobody refused in the ER.

[Winehole23]

Everybody pays from the payroll/income, and everybody is covered, no questions asked in the ER, nobody refused in the ER.All you have to do is get insurers to sign up. Great. Where's my free health care?

[boutons_deux]

"All you have to do is get insurers to sign up"

public replaces for-profit scammers. If you want 5-star complementary coverage, you pay the for-profit scammers.

"Where's my free health care"

There's no free health care. Everybody pays, everybody's covered.

[Drachen]

The compulsory saving mechanism is already in place. The problem is that the money gets funneled into the giant SS ponzi scheme. IMO a better solution would be to just take individuals SS contributions, buy treasury notes in that individual's name and leave the money in a personalized account. It achieves the mandatory savings and puts the money in the hands of the individual, not the government.

I would prefer a situation where there is a compulsory percentage that you must save in the vehicle that you prefer and must prove such savings on your taxes or something like that. T-bills at < 1% are just not appealing to me.

[Parker2112]

"All you have to do is get insurers to sign up"

public replaces for-profit scammers. If you want 5-star complementary coverage, you pay the for-profit scammers.

"Where's my free health care"

There's no free health care. Everybody pays, everybody's covered.

For all your criticism of corps, which I fully agree with, you have to admit that:
1) govt solutions are always botched,
2) funds are always siphoned,
3) program scope is always enlarged,
4) final cost is always over-budget,
5) there are always people on the take,
6) money will pass under the table,
7) results always miss the mark,
8) voters are always lied to,
9) participants always scam govt for every penny they can get, and
10) crooked politicians and their friends end up raiding the public coffers.

This is the reason to downsize govt. The same greed you find in corps is rampant in govt...of all levels.

[MannyIsGod]

Nope. The above is wrong. The meme that government does everything poorly or worse is flat out false.

[Parker2112]

I worked for City, State and Federal Govt. And in every case, an excessive % of employees are able to get by just drawing a paycheck and riding the clock. The size of the federal govt alone screams failure. The federal govt is one big stimulus program at this point. Gulf Oil cleanup: botched. Iraq: Botched. Afghan: botched. Bailouts: botched. Intelligence community: botched. Veterans medical: bothced. Insurance reform: Botched. Election process: botched. Congressional ethics enforcement: botched. Texas ethics enforcement: botched. Texas school book revision: botched. Etc. Etc. the govts solution success rate is self-explanatory.

There are way too many spoilers, cheats, crooks, liars, career politicians, etc on taxpayer payroll to have successful govt at this point. The only solution: start sending them home.

[Nbadan]

Hard to argue that the govt. doesn't do somethings right without looking at the US military...10 years or more technologically ahead than its nearest competitor....does it sell its top secrets on the open market?

Social Security is its own program, with its own funding and a 5-6 trillion dollar surplus that has been used to lead the US into a half-century of relative prosperity...to claim it as an 'entitlement program' is intellectually dishonest....

...the recent market crash would have wiped out millions of retirement accounts if the GOP got what it wanted under Dubya to let people invest their own money....no further proof needed libs got that right..

[Nbadan]

Here's the problem with an opt out. in no way am I buying that people would turn around and invest that money in a retirement benefit. Not any sizable percentage of the population anyway. What would then happen is that society would have an incredible burden placed on it by a retiring population sector and it would end up costing us just as much if not more.

I don't buy that people would be more responsible with that money when they obviously aren't doing so at the moment with the money they have.

Yeah, and the needest Americans would rather pay bills than worry about the future, so they would spend the money if they could...then you would end up with a situation where these people either become indentured servants for the rest of their lives, or a burden of the state and taxpayers...

[MannyIsGod]

I worked for City, State and Federal Govt. And in every case, an excessive % of employees are able to get by just drawing a paycheck and riding the clock. The size of the federal govt alone screams failure. The federal govt is one big stimulus program at this point. Gulf Oil cleanup: botched. Iraq: Botched. Afghan: botched. Bailouts: botched. Intelligence community: botched. Veterans medical: bothced. Insurance reform: Botched. Election process: botched. Congressional ethics enforcement: botched. Texas ethics enforcement: botched. Texas school book revision: botched. Etc. Etc. the govts solution success rate is self-explanatory.

There are way too many spoilers, cheats, crooks, liars, career politicians, etc on taxpayer payroll to have successful govt at this point. The only solution: start sending them home.

I've worked for fortune 500 companies and I can apply everything you said to them as well.

[101A]

Yet the defense part is completely ignored by the tea party as is the taxation part.

When have you heard the "Tea Party" explain exactly what they/it is, or is not, for? Tea Party != Republican.

I think if I got a mike, stood up and yelled at a Tea Party rally "WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE 15% ACROSS THE BOARD CUT IN SPENDING" - plenty of people, if not the vast majority would give Huzzah's.

If I added, "AND TO PAY FOR THE PAST SINS OF OUR COUNTRY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ALSO RAISE TAXES 15% FOR A WHILE" .... there would be quite a few who, if not cheer, would agree.

[101A]

Hard to argue that the govt. doesn't do somethings right without looking at the US military...10 years or more technologically ahead than its nearest competitor....does it sell its top secrets on the open market?

It is private, for profit, businesses that develop those secrets - and they are allowed to profit by selling their wares to other nations; although govt. HAS been wise enough to, for the most part, stay out of R&D.


Social Security is its own program, with its own funding and a 5-6 trillion dollar surplus that has been used to lead the US into a half-century of relative prosperity...to claim it as an 'entitlement program' is intellectually dishonest....

Sure, on its own it has a surplus; but the problem is, it is not allowed to stand on its own. The surplus has been spent on government bonds; and that cash has been spent. BECAUSE it is a government program, it fails, in spite of its inherent soundness. The inherent unsoundness of the fiscal house it is a room of, dooms it.

Also, When you hit a certain age, and have paid in, you are "entitled"; when you get disabled you are "entitled". Sounds like an entitlement program.


...the recent market crash would have wiped out millions of retirement accounts if the GOP got what it wanted under Dubya to let people invest their own money....no further proof needed libs got that right..

Did you see where the market was at at the close yesterday? It is doing better than the country at large - of course it is, consider who has skin in THAT game. And what G. Bush proposed wouldn't have ruined anyone; the percentages were too small. I'd gladly take HALF of what has been donated into my SS account, wash my hands of the program, and go it alone (I'm 42) - AND pay in half of my requirement until retirement; I'd come out WAY a head.

[George Gervin's Afro]

When have you heard the "Tea Party" explain exactly what they/it is, or is not, for? Tea Party != Republican.

I think if I got a mike, stood up and yelled at a Tea Party rally "WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE 15% ACROSS THE BOARD CUT IN SPENDING" - plenty of people, if not the vast majority would give Huzzah's.

If I added, "AND TO PAY FOR THE PAST SINS OF OUR COUNTRY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ALSO RAISE TAXES 15% FOR A WHILE" .... there would be quite a few who, if not cheer, would agree.

I think we've come to a point where one side says "our way is the only way" and then proceed to force things down our collective throats. Do tax cuts by themselves work? No. Does spending work by itself? No.

[CosmicCowboy]

Social Security is its own program, with its own funding and a 5-6 trillion dollar surplus that has been used to lead the US into a half-century of relative prosperity...to claim it as an 'entitlement program' is intellectually dishonest....



:lmao:lmao:lmao

Dan, the fact that you continue to parrot this position is so intellectually dishonest that it undermines the credibility of everything else you post.

That "surplus" simply doesn't exist. It's gone. When that "surplus" is finally needed to fund benefits the US government is going to have to come up with SIX TRILLION REAL DOLLARS to fund the promised benefits.

[101A]

I think we've come to a point where one side says "our way is the only way" and then proceed to force things down our collective throats. Do tax cuts by themselves work? No. Does spending work by itself? No.

Kumbaya, brother.

[Wild Cobra]

I would opt out of Social Security yesterday if I could!!!!

Compound interest > SS
Agreed.

[Wild Cobra]

"All you have to do is get insurers to sign up"

public replaces for-profit scammers. If you want 5-star complementary coverage, you pay the for-profit scammers.

"Where's my free health care"

There's no free health care. Everybody pays, everybody's covered.
No, only about 55% would pay.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Dan, the fact that you continue to parrot this position is so intellectually dishonest that it undermines the credibility of everything else you post.

That "surplus" simply doesn't exist. It's gone. When that "surplus" is finally needed to fund benefits the US government is going to have to come up with SIX TRILLION REAL DOLLARS to fund the promised benefits.
I saw:

SIX TRILLION REAL DOLLARS
Couldn't help but think of Obama as the "Six Trillion Dollar [spending] Man".

[CosmicCowboy]

I saw:

Couldn't help but think of Obama as the "Six Trillion Dollar [spending] Man".

Meh. Republicans and Democrats have been equally complicit in looting Social Security.