Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[Koios]

SS would have been sustainable if their trust funds had not been raided to pay for other programs.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes

It still is. We loaned to us, essentially, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, which if good enough for China, Japan, Brasil, etc, oughta be good enough for us.

SS is doing fine. No worries.

read the article mr wizard, the SS is not liquid. youve obviously never heard of someone who is cash poor.

I do not need spin from a pub now run by Malcolm Forbes' idiot child to understand the state of the SS Trust Fund, which holds massive US securities, too.

 

[Too Tall]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

Taxing people deprives them of the money they would normally spend. That lack of spending creates a lack of demand and destroys jobs. See how easy that is!

 

[Too Tall]

Actually, this isn't something to laugh about. This is a problem for both parties, and it is the main reason we can't have an honest discussion on entitlements, specifically SS and Medicare. Cuts are going to have to be made, especially to Medicare. Without them, there is no way Medicare is sustainable. The stupid thing is that the cuts could be reasonable if they were put in place now. We could raise the retirement age, and increase payroll taxes slightly which would be a great start. While many are against raising the retirement age, it would seem to me to be better to make the cuts in benefits on the front end rather than over the entire time benefits are dispersed. Make people wait a little longer and then give them full benefits. Besides reducing costs, it increases revenue into the system as people will have to work a few extra years paying into the programs.

I was under the impression that SS is a mandatory government insurance program named FICA, (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), and that Medicare is a mandatory national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government since 1965, that guarantees access to health insurance for Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities.

I have a hard time calling Insurance an entitlement, since I pay the premiums under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Then call it an entitlement based on this: you paid in, so you're entitled, as opposed to food aid or other assistance, which is a gift of sorts, and thus not something you're entitled to, in the same sense.

Does that help?

Just a little. I do not have a problem with the government revising the insurance programs (SS and Medicare) to make them sustainable for future generations. I do believe the current program should be grandfathered for those getting these entitlements and for those within 10 years of getting them.

Private insurance companies change their policies on occasion in order to stay in business. The government needs to do the same.

 

[Koios]

I was under the impression that SS is a mandatory government insurance program named FICA, (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), and that Medicare is a mandatory national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government since 1965, that guarantees access to health insurance for Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities.

I have a hard time calling Insurance an entitlement, since I pay the premiums under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Then call it an entitlement based on this: you paid in, so you're entitled, as opposed to food aid or other assistance, which is a gift of sorts, and thus not something you're entitled to, in the same sense.

Does that help?

Just a little. I do not have a problem with the government revising the insurance programs (SS and Medicare) to make them sustainable for future generations. I do believe the current program should be grandfathered for those getting these entitlements and for those within 10 years of getting them.

Private insurance companies change their policies on occasion in order to stay in business. The government needs to do the same.

Me either. SS needs more income subject to its withholding. MC needs us to reign in the absurd cost of health care and prescription drugs in this country.

That'll sustain both.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

Taxing people deprives them of the money they would normally spend. That lack of spending creates a lack of demand and destroys jobs. See how easy that is!

if this were true, then the Clinton era tax increase should have led to a huge recession. can you explain why it didnt?

 

[Oldstyle]

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

Taxing people deprives them of the money they would normally spend. That lack of spending creates a lack of demand and destroys jobs. See how easy that is!

if this were true, then the Clinton era tax increase should have led to a huge recession. can you explain why it didnt?

You need to brush up on your Keynesian economics, my friend! You raise taxes in a boom period...such as the Dot Com Boom...in order to cool off a too rapid expansion and to pay for the borrowing that you've previously done. That was what was going on during the "Clinton era". They were able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...they did NOT create the Dot Com Boom because they raised taxes!

The notion that what is happening NOW economically has anything in common with what was going on back then is laughable. Where is the "boom" that we're trying to cool off with a tax raise? We're mired in the slowest recovery from a recession in decades with an economy that is grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate. Raising taxes now will further slow our economy. It's bad fiscal policy based on non-existent economic principles.

 

[Koios]

Taxing people deprives them of the money they would normally spend. That lack of spending creates a lack of demand and destroys jobs. See how easy that is!

if this were true, then the Clinton era tax increase should have led to a huge recession. can you explain why it didnt?

You need to brush up on your Keynesian economics, my friend! You raise taxes in a boom period...such as the Dot Com Boom...in order to cool off a too rapid expansion and to pay for the borrowing that you've previously done. That was what was going on during the "Clinton era". They were able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...they did NOT create the Dot Com Boom because they raised taxes!

The notion that what is happening NOW economically has anything in common with what was going on back then is laughable. Where is the "boom" that we're trying to cool off with a tax raise? We're mired in the slowest recovery from a recession in decades with an economy that is grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate. Raising taxes now will further slow our economy. It's bad fiscal policy based on non-existent economic principles.

Dot Com Boom / Bust is chicken feed, and put the NASDAQ in the shitter for a short period, while some VCs were embarrassed at their pack mentality and not sound investing.

But look at Dot Com: it's been exploding, nearly uninterrupted, since the WWW IP-lookup idea come to fruition.

How does that work into your thesis?

 

[Oldstyle]

Then call it an entitlement based on this: you paid in, so you're entitled, as opposed to food aid or other assistance, which is a gift of sorts, and thus not something you're entitled to, in the same sense.

Does that help?

SS would have been sustainable if their trust funds had not been raided to pay for other programs.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes

It still is. We loaned to us, essentially, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, which if good enough for China, Japan, Brasil, etc, oughta be good enough for us.

SS is doing fine. No worries.

We loaned to us? We've written IOU's to ourselves that we have no way of paying. Why you think that's prudent fiscal policy is beyond me. Our government has raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs...in essence stealing from us by replacing the money that we've been forced to pay into the SS fund with essentially worthless IOU's. We currently have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government...how is it that we're going to pay off those IOU's? No worries? Keep on deluding yourself.

 

[Oldstyle]

if this were true, then the Clinton era tax increase should have led to a huge recession. can you explain why it didnt?

You need to brush up on your Keynesian economics, my friend! You raise taxes in a boom period...such as the Dot Com Boom...in order to cool off a too rapid expansion and to pay for the borrowing that you've previously done. That was what was going on during the "Clinton era". They were able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...they did NOT create the Dot Com Boom because they raised taxes!

The notion that what is happening NOW economically has anything in common with what was going on back then is laughable. Where is the "boom" that we're trying to cool off with a tax raise? We're mired in the slowest recovery from a recession in decades with an economy that is grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate. Raising taxes now will further slow our economy. It's bad fiscal policy based on non-existent economic principles.

Dot Com Boom / Bust is chicken feed, and put the NASDAQ in the shitter for a short period, while some VCs were embarrassed at their pack mentality and not sound investing.

But look at Dot Com: it's been exploding, nearly uninterrupted, since the WWW IP-lookup idea come to fruition.

How does that work into your thesis?

You really are one of the more clueless posters on here. The Dot Com Boom came to a halt back in 2000. "Exploding, nearly uninterrupted"? It happened over a three year period...boom and then bust.

 

[Koios]

SS would have been sustainable if their trust funds had not been raided to pay for other programs.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes

It still is. We loaned to us, essentially, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, which if good enough for China, Japan, Brasil, etc, oughta be good enough for us.

SS is doing fine. No worries.

We loaned to us? We've written IOU's to ourselves that we have no way of paying. Why you think that's prudent fiscal policy is beyond me. Our government has raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs...in essence stealing from us by replacing the money that we've been forced to pay into the SS fund with essentially worthless IOU's. We currently have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government...how is it that we're going to pay off those IOU's? No worries? Keep on deluding yourself.

Yeah; essentially. Our retirement, vis a vis Social Security, loaned money to the General Fund, and that note is backup up by the full faith and credit of the largest economy, on planet earth.

 

[saveliberty]

It still is. We loaned to us, essentially, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, which if good enough for China, Japan, Brasil, etc, oughta be good enough for us.

SS is doing fine. No worries.

So why does the government release reports telling us when the fund will go belly up without changes to the system? Why no progress toward fixing the issues? No worries? That attitude will be the end of SS.

 

[Oldstyle]

It still is. We loaned to us, essentially, and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, which if good enough for China, Japan, Brasil, etc, oughta be good enough for us.

SS is doing fine. No worries.

We loaned to us? We've written IOU's to ourselves that we have no way of paying. Why you think that's prudent fiscal policy is beyond me. Our government has raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs...in essence stealing from us by replacing the money that we've been forced to pay into the SS fund with essentially worthless IOU's. We currently have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government...how is it that we're going to pay off those IOU's? No worries? Keep on deluding yourself.

Yeah; essentially. Our retirement, vis a vis Social Security, loaned money to the General Fund, and that note is backup up by the full faith and credit of the largest economy, on planet earth.

Gee, the "full faith and credit" of the biggest debtor nation in the history of mankind? What part of we're broke do you not get?

 

[Koios]

You need to brush up on your Keynesian economics, my friend! You raise taxes in a boom period...such as the Dot Com Boom...in order to cool off a too rapid expansion and to pay for the borrowing that you've previously done. That was what was going on during the "Clinton era". They were able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...they did NOT create the Dot Com Boom because they raised taxes!

The notion that what is happening NOW economically has anything in common with what was going on back then is laughable. Where is the "boom" that we're trying to cool off with a tax raise? We're mired in the slowest recovery from a recession in decades with an economy that is grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate. Raising taxes now will further slow our economy. It's bad fiscal policy based on non-existent economic principles.

Dot Com Boom / Bust is chicken feed, and put the NASDAQ in the shitter for a short period, while some VCs were embarrassed at their pack mentality and not sound investing.

But look at Dot Com: it's been exploding, nearly uninterrupted, since the WWW IP-lookup idea come to fruition.

How does that work into your thesis?

You really are one of the more clueless posters on here. The Dot Com Boom came to a halt back in 2000. "Exploding, nearly uninterrupted"? It happened over a three year period...boom and then bust.

Hahahahahaha. Yeah; one of us is. I'm fucking rolling.

Now then, what's the Dollar volume from Dot Coms; and how's it tracking? Hmmmm?

Next, fit the pesky little fact into your thesis. You love talking econ rhetoric and name-dropping. Dazzle me with your grasp of its mechanisms. Go hog fucking wild.

 

[Koios]

We loaned to us? We've written IOU's to ourselves that we have no way of paying. Why you think that's prudent fiscal policy is beyond me. Our government has raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs...in essence stealing from us by replacing the money that we've been forced to pay into the SS fund with essentially worthless IOU's. We currently have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government...how is it that we're going to pay off those IOU's? No worries? Keep on deluding yourself.

Yeah; essentially. Our retirement, vis a vis Social Security, loaned money to the General Fund, and that note is backup up by the full faith and credit of the largest economy, on planet earth.

Gee, the "full faith and credit" of the biggest debtor nation in the history of mankind? What part of we're broke do you not get?

No. Ours. (USA) Not Japan.

Keep trying.

 

[Koios]

We loaned to us? We've written IOU's to ourselves that we have no way of paying. Why you think that's prudent fiscal policy is beyond me. Our government has raided the Social Security fund to pay for other government programs...in essence stealing from us by replacing the money that we've been forced to pay into the SS fund with essentially worthless IOU's. We currently have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government...how is it that we're going to pay off those IOU's? No worries? Keep on deluding yourself.

Yeah; essentially. Our retirement, vis a vis Social Security, loaned money to the General Fund, and that note is backup up by the full faith and credit of the largest economy, on planet earth.

Gee, the "full faith and credit" of the biggest debtor nation in the history of mankind? What part of we're broke do you not get?

The part where we aren't actually. We just do not tax suffient to our needs. But the country is rich and richer daily. Go look.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're now making the contention that the Dot Com boom and bust never took place? Really? Simply because the stock market worth of high tech companies has increased over the past ten years? I'm sorry, Koios but the investment frenzy that accompanied the Dot Com Boom back in 2000 does not exist now...not even a SHADOW of what was happening then.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination..."Uh, we're uh not uh going to touch entitlements, but we're uh going to uh keep the $500B in DoD cuts."

GOP...."We need cuts acrosse the board, not just with the DoD."

Obamabots...."See....the GOP is evil and they don't want to make any cuts."

Fucking insanity.

 

[Koios]

So you're now making the contention that the Dot Com boom and bust never took place? Really? Simply because the stock market worth of high tech companies has increased over the past ten years? I'm sorry, Koios but the investment frenzy that accompanied the Dot Com Boom back in 2000 does not exist now...not even a SHADOW of what was happening then.

No I said it was chicken feed. That there's what we call a metaphor, for something comparatively small.

Does the clear it up for you?

 

[Koios]

So you're now making the contention that the Dot Com boom and bust never took place? Really? Simply because the stock market worth of high tech companies has increased over the past ten years? I'm sorry, Koios but the investment frenzy that accompanied the Dot Com Boom back in 2000 does not exist now...not even a SHADOW of what was happening then.

Meanwhile, how're those mechanisms coming along? You know, Keynesian Economics, and such. You ever even read the wiki, top to bottom, much less study it at the university level? Hmmm?

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah; essentially. Our retirement, vis a vis Social Security, loaned money to the General Fund, and that note is backup up by the full faith and credit of the largest economy, on planet earth.

Gee, the "full faith and credit" of the biggest debtor nation in the history of mankind? What part of we're broke do you not get?

The part where we aren't actually. We just do not tax suffient to our needs. But the country is rich and richer daily. Go look.

You really are an idiot. We're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we currently spend, Einstein. If we were to increase taxes in order to offset that deficit those new tax rates would be staggering. Our economy would crater and businesses would flee this country in a stampede.