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.
En lements 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 en lements would probably not get doled out if the unemployment rate wasn't so high. Deficits aren't entirely dependent on government spending.
The budget percentage of the "big three" was WC's question, not mine.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.
Oh sorry, I should have seperated that better. I didn't mean both to be in response to you. That is my mistake.
Oh, really? I thought that was part was essential.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 en lements: Welfare, Food Stamps and Unemployment. Add it up. Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Other en lements - 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 en lements).
^^^What he said.
Keyword: Entirely.
Yet the defense part is completely ignored by the tea party as is the taxation part.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 en lements: Welfare, Food Stamps and Unemployment. Add it up. Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Other en lements - 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 en lements).
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.
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 en lement programs getting some cuts too, but you would have to elminate most if not all en lement programs just to realize a noticeable drop in deficit.
I guess what I am saying is that ALL spending has to be game.
Ok.
I would opt out of Social Security yesterday if I could!!!!
Compound interest > SS
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.
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.
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.
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.
All you have to do is get insurers to sign up. Great. Where's my free health care?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"
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote