Deficit solutions

[Wry Catcher]

This administrations practice of barrow & spend is doing a great job of influencing the average American. Bankruptcies have doubled since Obama took office.

Bankruptcies
Year.....Total.......Non-Business...Business
2010...1,572,597..1,512,989........59,608
2009...1,306,315..1,251,294........55,021
2008......967,831....934,009.........33,822
2007......751,056....727,167.........23,889

You really have no idea on cause and effect, do you?

 

[KissMy]

This administrations practice of barrow & spend is doing a great job of influencing the average American. Bankruptcies have doubled since Obama took office.

Bankruptcies
Year.....Total.......Non-Business...Business
2010...1,572,597..1,512,989........59,608
2009...1,306,315..1,251,294........55,021
2008......967,831....934,009.........33,822
2007......751,056....727,167.........23,889

You really have no idea on cause and effect, do you?

Hey did you hear the one about how it is all Bushes fault?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7tElV4ttY&feature=related"]It Is All Bush's Fault[/ame]

 

[william the wie]

There needs to be discussion about deficit "solutions"?

How about stop spending?

Anyone ever think of THAT one?

Too many entitlements: Social Security not only needs to be raised to age 70 it also needs to be indexed to life expectancy. Without serious entitlement reform too much spending is already spent before the budget reaches congress for that to be ignored.

 

[loosecannon]

what does indexed to life expectancy mean?

SS was paid for in advance and over the course of a lifetime. It allegedly has a trust fund that will finance it's operations thru 2035 or so.

We pay almost 14% of our income into SS. I am not gonna pay that tax unless I get benefits before I die. 70 is too high. I would rather pull the plug on everybody who needs expensive medical care beyond 80 yoa than push the SS benefit threshold to 70 yoa.

Maybe we would be better off to put a cap on the maximum age at which you can receive benefits, like 80 yoa.

 

[william the wie]

what does indexed to life expectancy mean?

SS was paid for in advance and over the course of a lifetime. It allegedly has a trust fund that will finance it's operations thru 2035 or so.

We pay almost 14% of our income into SS. I am not gonna pay that tax unless I get benefits before I die. 70 is too high. I would rather pull the plug on everybody who needs expensive medical care beyond 80 yoa than push the SS benefit threshold to 70 yoa.

Maybe we would be better off to put a cap on the maximum age at which you can receive benefits, like 80 yoa.

Retirees and their heirs will outvote you and outspend you without indexing to life expectancy.

If life expectancy goes up by 1% and age of eligibility also goes up 1% that is indexing.

As eligibility age increases support for the program will decrease and reforms to the system can be implemented.

 

[loosecannon]

As eligibility age increases support for the program will decrease and reforms to the system can be implemented.

Well that's a fact.

But I would still rather focus on capping the maximum age for receiving bennies than cap the minimum age.

We all paid 14% for decades. We all deserve an equal return. 14% ain't chicken scratch, if we had invested that money instead we could have a $million to show for it, real equity.

 

[william the wie]

As eligibility age increases support for the program will decrease and reforms to the system can be implemented.

Well that's a fact.

But I would still rather focus on capping the maximum age for receiving bennies than cap the minimum age.

We all paid 14% for decades. We all deserve an equal return. 14% ain't chicken scratch, if we had invested that money instead we could have a $million to show for it, real equity.

Unlikely without an opt out system of retirement but I would like to see such an opt out retirement system. Again that would require life expectancy indexing to become politically possible.

 

[LiberalNut]

Raising taxes is not an option

Then you will never, ever balance the budget. In reality, under Reagan and the two Bushes, it is revenue loss due to supply-side tax cuts that is responsible for over 2/3 of the debt accumulated during those presidencies, and, that is almost all of the US national debt. As far as the data goes, this is not an arguable point.

But, the righties don't actually argue the data. They have a religion that says that tax cuts are always good, no matter that they are going overwhelmingly to the super rich. This is what happens when you do that...

As the wealth of the nation becomes concentrated more and more in the hands of the miniscule minority at the top, total demand for goods and services drops because the rich spend much less of a percentage of ther income. Recession insues.

But, again, I'm just talking actual econometrics and data. What hope does that really have against the right wing religion?

 

[MaggieMae]

Raising taxes is not an option - we need to cut spending. Period. We have a SPENDING PROBLEM not an income problem.

I think if you took the time to read the material and watch the video, you would know that this particular group believes that the tax cuts can remain on a temporary basis until the economy is on a full road to recovery (if the other recommendations are implemented).

 

[MaggieMae]

This administrations practice of barrow & spend is doing a great job of influencing the average American. Bankruptcies have doubled since Obama took office.

Bankruptcies
Year.....Total.......Non-Business...Business
2010...1,572,597..1,512,989........59,608
2009...1,306,315..1,251,294........55,021
2008......967,831....934,009.........33,822
2007......751,056....727,167.........23,889

You really have no idea on cause and effect, do you?

Hey did you hear the one about how it is all Bushes fault?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7tElV4ttY&feature=related"]It Is All Bush's Fault[/ame]

A lot of it is, yes, but not all. There are a combination of cold hard factors going back a decade leading up to the housing bubble bursting. Educate yourself, hack.

 

[MaggieMae]

what does indexed to life expectancy mean?

SS was paid for in advance and over the course of a lifetime. It allegedly has a trust fund that will finance it's operations thru 2035 or so.

We pay almost 14% of our income into SS. I am not gonna pay that tax unless I get benefits before I die. 70 is too high. I would rather pull the plug on everybody who needs expensive medical care beyond 80 yoa than push the SS benefit threshold to 70 yoa.

Maybe we would be better off to put a cap on the maximum age at which you can receive benefits, like 80 yoa.

It should at least be indexed as to the maximum amount a person can collect (like how much he/she put in) IF that person has another pension plan that provides an adequate lifestyle. In many cases, obscenely wealthy people still collect and collect and collect Social Security benefits when they really don't need them.

 

[Sallow]

A lot of posts in this thread seem to be made without actually reading the suggestions. Read up guys..it's pretty bi-partisan.

 

[Zander]

Raising taxes is not an option - we need to cut spending. Period. We have a SPENDING PROBLEM not an income problem.

I think if you took the time to read the material and watch the video, you would know that this particular group believes that the tax cuts can remain on a temporary basis until the economy is on a full road to recovery (if the other recommendations are implemented).

I was responding to some other suggestions by posters here, not to the article.

But that does beg the question, what is a fair tax rate? Today, we have the top 50% of income earners paying 97%, the top 25% pay 86%, and the top 1% pay 39% of all federal income tax. In 1980 when the top marginal rate was 70% the richest 1% paid 19% of income taxes - now it is 39% and we have a top marginal rate of 35%. What does that tell us?

I think there has to be a "sweet spot" at which the tax rates are balanced- I think we are there with today's rates. Leave them alone. We are already sending approx. 28% of our GDP to the government- that is more than enough!! Now we need to CUT SPENDING.

 

[MaggieMae]

A lot of posts in this thread seem to be made without actually reading the suggestions. Read up guys..it's pretty bi-partisan.

Yes, it is. But I suppose since I was the one who posted it, everyone automatically assumes it's bogus. Here's what the panel in the OP suggests for fixing Social Security (there are more than just the single page, which is where more information is found).

1. Gradually raise the retirement age to seventy.

Currently, the retirement age is sixty-six, and starting in 2021, it is scheduled to gradually increase to sixty-seven at a rate of two months a year. As Americans today are living and working longer than in previous generations, the commission proposes to instead begin gradually increasing the retirement age to seventy before 2021, but at a rate of one month per year.

Furthermore, in consideration of those Americans who work or have worked manual-labor-intensive jobs and would therefore find working past sixty-seven an undue burden, the commission proposes that eligibility requirements for disability be narrowly liberalized beginning at age sixty-seven.

Projected Savings: $49 billion

Read more: Federal Budget Statistics - Esquire Commission to Balance the Federal Budget - Esquire