Where The Heck Do We Start Cutting?

[PoliticalChic]

Item 1 pays for itself and should not even be included in the federal budget.
since it pays for itself it is better looking for the budget defecit to include it in the budget.


Check your history SS has been on and off the budget a few times.

Wrong.

“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

Yeah but it still has over 2 trillion on the books.
And it still sucked in more than the govt had to make up from general revenues which makes the budget look better.


Unless you think that the USA should not honor its obligations to it's citizens?

“…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary

Now, since we are already in deficit, how do you suppose the government will put back all the money that was taken from the illusory trust fund?

Here's how:
‘As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082…."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent." Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), May 19, 2008, Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

Wake up, Citi. Stop making excuses for them.

 

[JBeukema]

why phase in private accounts for SS?

If they are private accounts they can do their own account nor not. We already have 401K accounts and such. Their personal responsibility.

Ohh we need to funnel "tax" dollars to private business?

I agree that "retirement funding" is a personal responsibility and thought my statement would be read as such.

My error.

To distill that statement to its simplest essence, Everyone under a certain age would be responsible for funding their own retirement nest egg.

Ditto with medical insurance.

Where there is a market....... companies will compete for business

Mea culpa

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

It's called Social Darwinism...

If we feed them when they're young, they breed

If we feed them when they're old, the act as parasites and weaken the capitalist machinery that serves to keep the bourgeoisie in power

Nowadays they call themselves Conservatives because their old names are anathema

 

[JBeukema]

I agree that "retirement funding" is a personal responsibility and thought my statement would be read as such.

My error.

To distill that statement to its simplest essence, Everyone under a certain age would be responsible for funding their own retirement nest egg.

Ditto with medical insurance.

Where there is a market....... companies will compete for business

Mea culpa

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

Z.....you sure do paint a bleak picture of the country, and the poor.

Let's lighten it a bit:

1. ". A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991." The Poor Get Richer - WSJ.com

2. Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Walter Williams
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

3. More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell.
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com

4. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.” An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010

All thanks to the socialists you people hate

If you had your way, all would be undone- or would have never happened in the first place

 

[uscitizen]

Wrong.

“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

Yeah but it still has over 2 trillion on the books.
And it still sucked in more than the govt had to make up from general revenues which makes the budget look better.


Unless you think that the USA should not honor its obligations to it's citizens?

“…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary

Now, since we are already in deficit, how do you suppose the government will put back all the money that was taken from the illusory trust fund?

Here's how:
‘As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082…."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent." Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), May 19, 2008, Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

Wake up, Citi. Stop making excuses for them.

that is lumping it all together. Meidcare is what is going to eat our lunch.

To fix SS just raise the retirement age which makes sense since we live longer now.
And drop the upper limit you withhold SS contributions on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We need to limit government spending to the amount Washington has historically taxed—18 percent of GDP. A compromise could balance the budget at 19 percent of GDP, the midpoint between historical tax revenues (18 percent) and spending (20 percent).

We're currently taxed at 14% of GDP, so you're calling for a tax increase.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have become a caricature of yourself.

Do you just read the "War Resisters League," or do you write for them as well?

And, how about a few quotes from Sojourner's?

What's next, Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie?

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

Did prosperity follow the conservative policies of Coolidege?

"And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform


“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

You can't seem to get anything right.

Item 1 pays for itself and should not even be included in the federal budget.
since it pays for itself it is better looking for the budget defecit to include it in the budget.


Check your history SS has been on and off the budget a few times.

Wrong.

“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

What do you think the Trust Fund is for?

 

[Flopper]

why phase in private accounts for SS?

If they are private accounts they can do their own account nor not. We already have 401K accounts and such. Their personal responsibility.

Ohh we need to funnel "tax" dollars to private business?

I agree that "retirement funding" is a personal responsibility and thought my statement would be read as such.

My error.

To distill that statement to its simplest essence, Everyone under a certain age would be responsible for funding their own retirement nest egg.

Ditto with medical insurance.

Where there is a market....... companies will compete for business

Mea culpa

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

That's exactly what they are saying. For the 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, retirement planning is not an option. But, that's the norm for the Right. Jobs for low skilled and marginal workers that pay enough to support a family and a retirement plan just don't exist.

Shift the taxes from rich to the poor. That will give the poor an incentive to get rich. Cut the food stamps and they can grow a garden. Cut housing subsidies and they can live in a cardboard box. Or as Marie Antonie might say, "Let them eat cake."

 

[Oddball]

I agree that "retirement funding" is a personal responsibility and thought my statement would be read as such.

My error.

To distill that statement to its simplest essence, Everyone under a certain age would be responsible for funding their own retirement nest egg.

Ditto with medical insurance.

Where there is a market....... companies will compete for business

Mea culpa

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

That's exactly what they are saying. For the 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, retirement planning is not an option. But, that's the norm for the Right. Jobs for low skilled and marginal workers that pay enough to support a family and a retirement plan just don't exist.

Shift the taxes from rich to the poor. That will give the poor an incentive to get rich. Cut the food stamps and they can grow a garden. Cut housing subsidies and they can live in a cardboard box. Or as Marie Antonie might say, "Let them eat cake."

Or, you tax and regulate the road to getting out of poverty at such a rate that only a relative few can and/or want to do so...Then you blame those who have made it out for keeping the remainder down.

 

[boedicca]

I suggest USC read this and get back to us on the solvency of SS, Medicare, and the U.S. federal government in general.

Current Report: Financial Report of the United States: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

 

[Zander]

I agree that "retirement funding" is a personal responsibility and thought my statement would be read as such.

My error.

To distill that statement to its simplest essence, Everyone under a certain age would be responsible for funding their own retirement nest egg.

Ditto with medical insurance.

Where there is a market....... companies will compete for business

Mea culpa

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

That's exactly what they are saying. For the 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, retirement planning is not an option. But, that's the norm for the Right. Jobs for low skilled and marginal workers that pay enough to support a family and a retirement plan just don't exist.

Shift the taxes from rich to the poor. That will give the poor an incentive to get rich. Cut the food stamps and they can grow a garden. Cut housing subsidies and they can live in a cardboard box. Or as Marie Antonie might say, "Let them eat cake."

Eat cake? - Screw that! Let 'em eat shit. With few exceptions the poor have no one to blame but themselves. I am all for helping retards and cripples, the rest of you can fuck off. Help yourself.

 

[boedicca]

Item 1 pays for itself and should not even be included in the federal budget.
since it pays for itself it is better looking for the budget defecit to include it in the budget.


Check your history SS has been on and off the budget a few times.

Wrong.

“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

What do you think the Trust Fund is for?

What financial instruments are in the Trust Fund?

 

[JBeukema]

And what about the millions of American who work their entire lives at low paying jobs and have no ability to save because their paychecks go from week to week? And those families that have big medical bills and lose everything? Not everybody makes 6 figure salaries and can prepare for retirement. Lets say you get a nest egg and a financial collapse wipes you out. Are you saying that you would have to live on the streets in your old age? These people don't count, is that what you are saying? Sounds elitist to me.

That's exactly what they are saying. For the 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, retirement planning is not an option. But, that's the norm for the Right. Jobs for low skilled and marginal workers that pay enough to support a family and a retirement plan just don't exist.

Shift the taxes from rich to the poor. That will give the poor an incentive to get rich. Cut the food stamps and they can grow a garden. Cut housing subsidies and they can live in a cardboard box. Or as Marie Antonie might say, "Let them eat cake."

Eat cake? - Screw that! Let 'em eat shit. With few exceptions the poor have no one to blame but themselves. I am all for helping retards and cripples, the rest of you can fuck off. Help yourself.

That's like saying the slaves are slaves of their own fault.

Try reading an actual history book. It's only thanks to socialist reforms that the average man has a shot at making it nowadays.

 

[JBeukema]

[FONT=Palatino, Times, Serif]To him that was higher in this degree,
That he should teach the simplest of wit
In that honest craft to be perfect
And so each one shall teach the other,
And love together as sister and brother...
[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Times, Serif]But we should never one another call,
Within the world amongst us all,
Neither subject nor servant, my dear brother,
Though he be not so perfect as is another;
Each shall call other fellows by cuthe
Because they come of ladies' birth.[/FONT]

 

[Samson]

That's exactly what they are saying. For the 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, retirement planning is not an option. But, that's the norm for the Right. Jobs for low skilled and marginal workers that pay enough to support a family and a retirement plan just don't exist.

Shift the taxes from rich to the poor. That will give the poor an incentive to get rich. Cut the food stamps and they can grow a garden. Cut housing subsidies and they can live in a cardboard box. Or as Marie Antonie might say, "Let them eat cake."

Eat cake? - Screw that! Let 'em eat shit. With few exceptions the poor have no one to blame but themselves. I am all for helping retards and cripples, the rest of you can fuck off. Help yourself.

That's like saying the slaves are slaves of their own fault.

Try reading an actual history book. It's only thanks to socialist reforms that the average man has a shot at making it nowadays.

Would that "actual history book" be printed in North Korea?



You guys that learned a little information in your sociology classes are an amusing lot.

 

[editec]

Start by cutting your own throat if you think that EITHER PARTY is going to help you cut spending.

 

[Annie]

Start by cutting your own throat if you think that EITHER PARTY is going to help you cut spending.

I agree. Both parties are part and parcel of the mindset of getting what they can from lobbyists and the belief that bringing home the bacon will result in reelection.

The glimmer of hope I've seen though has been from the Republican side. For over a year and a half when they go home to 'show what they've got for their state,' the people are mad. They've been showing up at town hall meetings telling them 'to stop the spending craze.'

The spending isn't new, but the electorate has been energized by the economy. Perhaps it was a more slow process that began 9/11? Maybe the 2000 election? Most likely, all of the above.

In any case, many are now paying attention. When the lame duck session began and it looked like the Republicans, including some of those re-elected were going to go back to business as usual, they heard from the people and reversed themselves. Whether or not the average Joe will sustain his attention? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Modbert]

Eat cake? - Screw that! Let 'em eat shit. With few exceptions the poor have no one to blame but themselves. I am all for helping retards and cripples, the rest of you can fuck off. Help yourself.

Way to show yourself ignorant of both sociology and history all in one post.

 

[JBeukema]

Eat cake? - Screw that! Let 'em eat shit. With few exceptions the poor have no one to blame but themselves. I am all for helping retards and cripples, the rest of you can fuck off. Help yourself.

That's like saying the slaves are slaves of their own fault.

Try reading an actual history book. It's only thanks to socialist reforms that the average man has a shot at making it nowadays.

Would that "actual history book" be printed in North Korea?



You guys that learned a little information in your sociology classes are an amusing lot.

Do you know what it was like circa and post- Industrial Revolution before the Wobblies et al came along?

 

[Flopper]

Wrong.

“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

What do you think the Trust Fund is for?

What financial instruments are in the Trust Fund?

US Treasuries
Investments held at end of month

 

[Flopper]

Start by cutting your own throat if you think that EITHER PARTY is going to help you cut spending.

I agree. Both parties are part and parcel of the mindset of getting what they can from lobbyists and the belief that bringing home the bacon will result in reelection.

The glimmer of hope I've seen though has been from the Republican side. For over a year and a half when they go home to 'show what they've got for their state,' the people are mad. They've been showing up at town hall meetings telling them 'to stop the spending craze.'

The spending isn't new, but the electorate has been energized by the economy. Perhaps it was a more slow process that began 9/11? Maybe the 2000 election? Most likely, all of the above.

In any case, many are now paying attention. When the lame duck session began and it looked like the Republicans, including some of those re-elected were going to go back to business as usual, they heard from the people and reversed themselves. Whether or not the average Joe will sustain his attention? We'll have to wait and see.

I doubt we are going to see politicians turning down funds for their state. The only way there will be massive cuts in federal spending is if there is a financial criss such as Moody downgrading US Treasuries, otherwise it will be business as usually. The House led by Republicans will cut funding on programs that are in line with their political believes. The Senate led by the Democrats will force a compromise restoring funding for programs that are in line with their political beliefs. The President will threaten a veto if some programs are not restored.

When the budget is finally approved, there will still be a Dept of Education, Energy, Defense, etc... It is not necessary that a trillion dollar deficit be wiped out in one year. In fact we don't ever have to wipe it out entirely. As long as those that invest in US debt feel their investment is secure, we can carry a deficit The deficit is now about 10% of GDP. The norm over the last 30 years is about 3% or about 450 billion. So if we cut the deficit by 600 billion we'll be good shape. Part of deficit will be wiped out by increased revenues due to an expanding economy which is happening now. Also, as we move out of Iraq and Afghanistan in next few years we will save hundreds of billions. If we can knock off a 100 billion a year in spendings for the next 4 or 5 years there will be no deficit problem.

Dismantling the US government may be needed to accomplish some political goals of the far right, but it's certainly not needed to solve the deficit problem.