What we've lost in the partisan budget debate

[CountofTuscany]

Over the past few months as the debt limit debate heated up, both sides have offered a host of meaningful reforms that cross party lines. Instead of getting any of those reforms passed, it appears we will either default or pass a tepid bill full of potential cuts that may or may not occur in future Congresses.

Meanwhile, we've left the following on the cutting room floor - ideas that many in both parties support:

1. Cutting government subsidies for profitable private sector oil, agriculture and energy initiatives.

2. Reforming SS and Medicare to make them sustainable for decades to come.

3. Reforming the tax code to reduce rates, remove exemptions and create a more efficient tax system.

4. Cutting spending on unnecessary defense programs.

I'm sure there are many, many more. What else have we left on the table?

In the end, we will achieve zero of these things and maintain the decades-long status quo, strictly for partisan political reasons. A massive opportunity lost to the extreme wings of both parties who have pulled their leadership away from the negotiating table and into their ideological corners.

Maybe people will start waking up to the fact our government does not operate in our best interest. Either side.

 

[8537]

Odd that when Bush tried to reform Social Security by allowing people to put a portion of it in a real trust fund he was excoriated, lambasted, pilloried, mocked, ridiculed, derided, denounced, criticized, berated, rebuked, censured, reviled, chastised, condemned, lectured, castigated, upbraided and vilified that he dared to question the sanctity of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Al Gore called it a "Risky scheme" to let people keep some of their own money.

Yeah, we lost a lot, trillions by my counting, because of Dem demagoguery.

Bush's plan didn't make the fiscal position of SS better. In fact, it made it worse in the short term by over a trillion dollars.

So we're better off with a 100% loss of principal? Is that right?

How the fuck is letting people keep their own money a "loss"?

Who said anything about a loss? Not me.

I said the reform plan made the fiscal position of SS worse.

 

[Full-Auto]

Bush's plan didn't make the fiscal position of SS better. In fact, it made it worse in the short term by over a trillion dollars.

How does not having any money in the trust, become worse?

By removing some of the expected future revenues to the trust.

LOL SO THE PRESIDENT CAN THREATEN CHECKS GOING OUT.

It doesnt matter what fragrance you spray. It still stinks.

 

[8537]

How does not having any money in the trust, become worse?

By removing some of the expected future revenues to the trust.

LOL SO THE PRESIDENT CAN THREATEN CHECKS GOING OUT.

It doesnt matter what fragrance you spray. It still stinks.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. The fact is that the trust consists of US Treasuries. The government can't just hold the trust fund in cash so it holds them in US Treasuries instead.

The impact of the Bush reform proposal would have been to decrease the amount of revenue entering the system in the short term without altering the short (or middle) term payments. That would have meant that the system would have fewer treasuries to cash as needed.

It's simple math.

 

[Jarhead]

show me one bill submitted by Bush to reform SS?

Are you denying Bush suggested partial privatization of Social Security?

"suggesting" is not the same thing as "trying to" now is it?

I suggested that invading Iraq was a mistake.

When the President makes a suggestion to congress...that is the same as "trying to".
He did not make the suggestion becuase he didnt want them to address it.

They simply opted to spin his intentions and then turn the other way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're now informed that there is no Social Security Trust Fund so we're looking at a worse than Madoff 100% Loss of our principal.

How do you want us to react? Flowers? Pom Poms?

The Social Security Trust Fund, like any trust fund, was invested for use at a later date. As it happens, it was invested in special-issue US treasuries.

August 3rd 2011 is that "Later date" for our seniors and Obama just told them their money is all gone

 

[Jarhead]

By removing some of the expected future revenues to the trust.

LOL SO THE PRESIDENT CAN THREATEN CHECKS GOING OUT.

It doesnt matter what fragrance you spray. It still stinks.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. The fact is that the trust consists of US Treasuries. The government can't just hold the trust fund in cash so it holds them in US Treasuries instead.

The impact of the Bush reform proposal would have been to decrease the amount of revenue entering the system in the short term without altering the short (or middle) term payments. That would have meant that the system would have fewer treasuries to cash as needed.

It's simple math.

True.
But in the long run, it would have resulted in a levelling out...and people would have had more moeny in their own control in the meantime.

 

[Full-Auto]

By removing some of the expected future revenues to the trust.

LOL SO THE PRESIDENT CAN THREATEN CHECKS GOING OUT.

It doesnt matter what fragrance you spray. It still stinks.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. The fact is that the trust consists of US Treasuries. The government can't just hold the trust fund in cash so it holds them in US Treasuries instead.

The impact of the Bush reform proposal would have been to decrease the amount of revenue entering the system in the short term without altering the short (or middle) term payments. That would have meant that the system would have fewer treasuries to cash as needed.

It's simple math.

The fact remains it was not a real investment. That couldnt be more clear. Now if GWs reform had gone through. People would have at least HAVE some money. HARD CASH.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush's plan didn't make the fiscal position of SS better. In fact, it made it worse in the short term by over a trillion dollars.

How does not having any money in the trust, become worse?

By removing some of the expected future revenues to the trust.

Right, Madoff ran his Fund the same way. And he would never have been caught as long as those "expected future revenues to the trust" kept coming in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

show me one bill submitted by Bush to reform SS?

Are you denying Bush suggested partial privatization of Social Security?

"suggesting" is not the same thing as "trying to" now is it?

I suggested that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Topic: Here

uscitizen: Way out in Lalaland

See the problem?

 

[Jarhead]

show me one bill submitted by Bush to reform SS?

Are you denying Bush suggested partial privatization of Social Security?

"suggesting" is not the same thing as "trying to" now is it?

I suggested that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Off topic but I need to ask you this US Citizen...and anyone else FROM THE LEFT that wants to answer...

What were your thoughts about Reid not allowing a debate and subsequent vote on the GOP's debt ceiling reolution that passed the house with bipartisanship?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush's plan didn't make the fiscal position of SS better. In fact, it made it worse in the short term by over a trillion dollars.

So we're better off with a 100% loss of principal? Is that right?

How the fuck is letting people keep their own money a "loss"?

Who said anything about a loss? Not me.

I said the reform plan made the fiscal position of SS worse.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

So a 100% loss of principal is better than any alternative? Seriously?

The Trust Fund is empty, busted, broke, wiped out, gone and you think partial privatization would have made it worse?

That's so wrong only Krugman could have suggested it

 

[Full-Auto]

Are you denying Bush suggested partial privatization of Social Security?

"suggesting" is not the same thing as "trying to" now is it?

I suggested that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Off topic but I need to ask you this US Citizen...and anyone else FROM THE LEFT that wants to answer...

What were your thoughts about Reid not allowing a debate and subsequent vote on the GOP's debt ceiling reolution that passed the house with bipartisanship?

Forgive the chuckle, But a few crossing party lines in not what I consider bipartisan.

There were three repub votes for the stimulus in both houses. Hardly bipartisan. Both sides spin it though.

 

[Jarhead]

"suggesting" is not the same thing as "trying to" now is it?

I suggested that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Off topic but I need to ask you this US Citizen...and anyone else FROM THE LEFT that wants to answer...

What were your thoughts about Reid not allowing a debate and subsequent vote on the GOP's debt ceiling reolution that passed the house with bipartisanship?

Forgive the chuckle, But a few crossing party lines in not what I consider bipartisan.

There were three repub votes for the stimulus in both houses. Hardly bipartisan. Both sides spin it though.

lol...yes...I know.
As a matter of fact...the few Dems that voted yes probably got permission from Pelosi to do so for political re-election reasons...

But that being said....

I would like to know who on the left felt that it was appropriate to refuse a debate and a vote on a bill that passed the house on such an important issue.

If Reid felt it was useless, then why not have the debate and confirm it was useless?

Or was he protecting his party...and the President.

Afterall....the President was going to veto it.....and what if it passed the house and the senate..the president vetos it...and we default.

My thoughts? Partisanship got in the way of a healthy debate.

 

[Claudette]

I think Reid didn't bring it before the Senate for debate and vote is because he wasn't sure how his Senate would vote. They may very well have passed it.


If they had passed it and it went to Barry he may have vetoed it.

Wouldn't look good for OL'BO.

Just a thought.

 

[8537]

LOL SO THE PRESIDENT CAN THREATEN CHECKS GOING OUT.

It doesnt matter what fragrance you spray. It still stinks.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. The fact is that the trust consists of US Treasuries. The government can't just hold the trust fund in cash so it holds them in US Treasuries instead.

The impact of the Bush reform proposal would have been to decrease the amount of revenue entering the system in the short term without altering the short (or middle) term payments. That would have meant that the system would have fewer treasuries to cash as needed.

It's simple math.

The fact remains it was not a real investment. That couldnt be more clear. Now if GWs reform had gone through. People would have at least HAVE some money. HARD CASH.

It was not a real investment? What makes you think it wasn't real? The Chinese seem to believe that investment in US treasuries is "real".

 

[8537]

So we're better off with a 100% loss of principal? Is that right?

How the fuck is letting people keep their own money a "loss"?

Who said anything about a loss? Not me.

I said the reform plan made the fiscal position of SS worse.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

So a 100% loss of principal is better than any alternative? Seriously?

The Trust Fund is empty, busted, broke, wiped out, gone and you think partial privatization would have made it worse?

That's so wrong only Krugman could have suggested it

A 100% loss of principal? Quit making shit up, Frank - it's embarrassing.

The Trust Fund is invested in US Securities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who said anything about a loss? Not me.

I said the reform plan made the fiscal position of SS worse.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

So a 100% loss of principal is better than any alternative? Seriously?

The Trust Fund is empty, busted, broke, wiped out, gone and you think partial privatization would have made it worse?

That's so wrong only Krugman could have suggested it

A 100% loss of principal? Quit making shit up, Frank - it's embarrassing.

The Trust Fund is invested in US Securities.

That's not what Obama and SecTres are saying!

Neither Obama nor Geithner said, "Seniors need not worry because there is a robust demand for the bonds in Trust Fund"

They are saying the Fund is bust and they need to borrow new dollars to pay the checks.

 

[8537]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

So a 100% loss of principal is better than any alternative? Seriously?

The Trust Fund is empty, busted, broke, wiped out, gone and you think partial privatization would have made it worse?

That's so wrong only Krugman could have suggested it

A 100% loss of principal? Quit making shit up, Frank - it's embarrassing.

The Trust Fund is invested in US Securities.

That's not what Obama and SecTres are saying!

Neither Obama nor Geithner said, "Seniors need not worry because there is a robust demand for the bonds in Trust Fund"

They are saying the Fund is bust and they need to borrow new dollars to pay the checks.

The fund is "bust" because the entity that holds the investment is refusing to pay its debts.

Just like - and we've been through this before, Frank - if your pension fund said "sorry, we're not willing to take money out of our investments in order to pay you".