Where The Heck Do We Start Cutting?

[Talismen]

1. Entitlements....

It seems to me that entitlements are like contracts. They must be enforced for folks who are currently receiving benefits. We've made promises, and individuals have made their contracts/commitments based on same....children in college, mortgages, car payments.

Changes should be made, but only for future recipients. And lag time for the changes should five to ten years.

I have to disagree there.

There is rampant abuse within most entitlement programs. People who utterly refuse to get a job, because it is easier to sit back and let the government check roll in. Whether that 'check' is subsidized rent, help with food or utilities, etc etc. Here in Iowa, we literally have generational-welfare families that enroll their youngest 'welfare prospects' as soon as they can legally do so, and then they sit back and let everyone else pay their way.

Does this post apply to Social Security and Medicare?
These are the 'entitlements' that I was refering to.

It might as well apply to all of them, but no, not specifically to those two.

Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate in '08 that wanted to tackle SS reform.
But, those who are more concerned with their candidate having 'flash' rather than being of sound political mind, didn't care to follow his lead.

They followed the media's candidate -- McCain.

 

[uscitizen]

Everyone will feel the "pain" before this economic debacle runs its course.

In FY 2010, the Empire's revenue totaled 2.4 trillion from all sources, ie; personal income tax, corporate income tax, excise taxes, customs duties, et. al.

The Big Four, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Interest on the Debt consumed 2.23 trillion of the revenue.

The math is simple.

Every item in the budget must be examined and trimmed and all "Unconstitutional" spending must cease.

Eliminate the Department of Education.

Eliminate the Department of Energy. The old AEC/ERDA to be divided between DoD and Commerce.

The Department of Agriculture to be cut by 50% in personnel and budget.

The Departments of Commerce and Labor to be combined into a Department of Industry and Labor with a 50% reduction in personnel and budget.

Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Developement.

Eliminate Department of Health and Human Services but keep the CDC as an Independent Agency.

Eliminate the Department of Transportation. Amtrak to "sink or swim" on its own.

Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, the US version of the Gestapo, in its entirety.

Department of Defense: As specified in the Withdrawal Agreement, leave Iraq on schedule. Withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as logistically possible. Mothball four carrier battle groups. Scrap all F-15s and F-16s and send half the remaining AF to the Reserves. Cut one Marine Division and one Air Wing. Withdraw all Forces from Korea, Japan including Okinawa, Germany, Italy and Close most or all of our 727 Foreign Bases. Cut the Army down to 360,000.

The Department of Veterans Affairs may have whatever resources are necessary to care for our injured and disabled Vets and their Widows (Spouses) and Orphans. The Budget will NOT be balanced on the backs of those who bore the most burdens for the Nation and its People.

Raise the Age of Retirement for Social Security to 70 over the next ten years (2012). Raise the Age for Early Retirement to 67 with a one percent reduction in benefits for each month retired early with the same cut in all future COLA increases.

Institute a "phase out" of SS over the next 40 years and phase in Private Accounts.

Ditto with Medicare.

Eliminate Medicaid. This is a State issue.

No Benefits for "Illegals."

That's a start.

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?

 

[Pepe]

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Out of curiosity, what should the policy be if some folks don't plan, and wind up with no nest egg at retirement?

Are you familiar with the Galveston plan, that began before the government prevented localities from opting out of Social Security?
Here:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

And here:
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

 

[zzzz]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Many believe we are a dog eat dog species and if the weak can't cut it, well that is just too bad.

I like to believe we are better than that but have a hard time keeping any faith alive along those lines.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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

 

[midcan5]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Federal Pie Chart

 

[Oddball]

This thread isn't about tax cuts, dingbat.

 

[zzzz]

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

How many of those 40% who own homes (was this before the housing bust?) also have a mortgage on that house? An air conditioner in 1970 cost how much? How does that relate to today? Oh, there are a lot of people who can make it and if they did not spend their money on fluff they would have a good retirement. Of course if everybody quit spending then no one would have jobs, would they? But there are people who never get ahead and it is not their fault, just the cards they were dealt. Factory and other manual labor people who barely stayed ahead of inflation through the years.

I see and talk to people everyday who are barely making ends meat and not all of them are in their teens or twenties. Some of them are retired and they are relying on pensions, pensions that are not worth what they thought they would be worth. Some worked all their life, raised a family and now they rely on social security and a pension and can barely make it. This is the real world. This Christmas the churches were packed with people getting free Christmas dinners, people who were getting canned goods and clothes to feed and clothe their families. I see people who need medical help but cannot get it because they fall through the cracks in the system.

I know there is a problem and that it needs to be fixed but it is not a simple fix. Every effect has a cause and every attempt to fix it causes other problems. A never ending problem. The best we can hope for is to have some good people work at it and I do not see any good people working to solve these problems, just a lot of people who are working aginst each other to make themselves look good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Federal Pie Chart

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.

 

[Pepe]

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

Out of curiosity, what should the policy be if some folks don't plan, and wind up with no nest egg at retirement?

Are you familiar with the Galveston plan, that began before the government prevented localities from opting out of Social Security?
Here:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

And here:
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

I read the link and it is not unlike some other Public Plans.

I have written of Chile's system at length which is very similiar to what you describe.

Many Liberals "comeback" with the same argument, what to do with those who don't plan or participate.

There are many arguments for and against forced participation but ultimately for those who fail to plan for retirement, the responsibility is squarely upon their shoulders.

Somewhere down the line...much sooner than later in all probability, the concept of "Personal Responsibility" will be forced upon the masses of sheeple who comprise the majority of the Empire's Subjects.

There are many good and actuarilly sound plans to "Reform" "Social Security" but the biggest "Unfunded Liabilities" are with Medicare, Medicaid and Drug Entitlement.

The current 800 lb gorilla in the room is the annual Interest on the Debt.

Currently interest is at abnormally low levels due to the Fed sending false signals to the Market.

That will not last.

Rates will rise and rise in a hurry with the first Muni/State Default.

Five percent of 14 Trillion is 700 Billion.

Seven percent is 980 Billion.

Ten percent is 1.4 Trillion.

The Jimmy Carter rate of 18% is 2.52 Trillion.

"We the People" may not have the time required before the "Black Swan" appears.

 

[uscitizen]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Federal Pie Chart

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

How many of those 40% who own homes (was this before the housing bust?) also have a mortgage on that house? An air conditioner in 1970 cost how much? How does that relate to today? Oh, there are a lot of people who can make it and if they did not spend their money on fluff they would have a good retirement. Of course if everybody quit spending then no one would have jobs, would they? But there are people who never get ahead and it is not their fault, just the cards they were dealt. Factory and other manual labor people who barely stayed ahead of inflation through the years.

I see and talk to people everyday who are barely making ends meat and not all of them are in their teens or twenties. Some of them are retired and they are relying on pensions, pensions that are not worth what they thought they would be worth. Some worked all their life, raised a family and now they rely on social security and a pension and can barely make it. This is the real world. This Christmas the churches were packed with people getting free Christmas dinners, people who were getting canned goods and clothes to feed and clothe their families. I see people who need medical help but cannot get it because they fall through the cracks in the system.

I know there is a problem and that it needs to be fixed but it is not a simple fix. Every effect has a cause and every attempt to fix it causes other problems. A never ending problem. The best we can hope for is to have some good people work at it and I do not see any good people working to solve these problems, just a lot of people who are working aginst each other to make themselves look good.

Z- I can give you the facts, and you can choose to ignore them.

You can quibble over whether or not a home-owner has a mortgage or not....I choose to use the "gates test."
When they raise the gates, do folks rush in, or do they rush out.
You know the answer for America: what do you think that means?

1. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "We are the oldest continuing democracy in the world. . . . We don't make refugees, we admit them. When the rich of the world get sick, they come here to be treated, and when their children come of age, they send them here to our universities. We have a supple political system open to reform, and a wildly diverse culture that has moments of stress but plenty of give. . . . The point is that while terrible challenges face us -- improving a sick public education system, ending the easy-money culture, rebuilding the economy -- we are building from an extraordinary, brilliant, and enduring base."

2. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.
You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html


3. This nation was founded on the idea that citizens were born into a system that provided them with the ability to be successful and secure. In other words, the founding documents did not decree success, but opportunity. Need proof that the opportunity is real?
Over 90% of millionaires made their money, they didn't inherit it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Federal Pie Chart

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

 

[uscitizen]

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

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?

 

[Oddball]

Item 1 pays for itself and should not even be included in the federal budget.

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

It's on budget now and all the "reserves" have been spent.

And at $100 trillion of liabilities that have yet to be funded, it's hardly paying for itself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Out of curiosity, what should the policy be if some folks don't plan, and wind up with no nest egg at retirement?

Are you familiar with the Galveston plan, that began before the government prevented localities from opting out of Social Security?
Here:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

And here:
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

I read the link and it is not unlike some other Public Plans.

I have written of Chile's system at length which is very similiar to what you describe.

Many Liberals "comeback" with the same argument, what to do with those who don't plan or participate.

There are many arguments for and against forced participation but ultimately for those who fail to plan for retirement, the responsibility is squarely upon their shoulders.

Somewhere down the line...much sooner than later in all probability, the concept of "Personal Responsibility" will be forced upon the masses of sheeple who comprise the majority of the Empire's Subjects.

There are many good and actuarilly sound plans to "Reform" "Social Security" but the biggest "Unfunded Liabilities" are with Medicare, Medicaid and Drug Entitlement.

The current 800 lb gorilla in the room is the annual Interest on the Debt.

Currently interest is at abnormally low levels due to the Fed sending false signals to the Market.

That will not last.

Rates will rise and rise in a hurry with the first Muni/State Default.

Five percent of 14 Trillion is 700 Billion.

Seven percent is 980 Billion.

Ten percent is 1.4 Trillion.

The Jimmy Carter rate of 18% is 2.52 Trillion.

"We the People" may not have the time required before the "Black Swan" appears.

Nice post. Thanks.

But you have avoided the question. By " but ultimately for those who fail to plan for retirement, the responsibility is squarely upon their shoulders."

Does this mean we walk around the bodies, or step over them?

We don't allow our fellow citizens to die in the streets in this country, so you calculation has another factor to include.

Now what?

 

[Pepe]

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.

Sounds like an Uber Liberal comeback to me.

Charity is a Christian duty.

Charity is also the responsibility of your family, extended family, neighbors, community and charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army.

The Imperial Government is part and parcel of the problem.

The Mandarins in DC are only interested in self-survival.

They are damn sure not interested in you.

Many years past, our Church started a program for the indigent. Doctors and Nurses volunteered time, lay people time and local pharmacies offered drugs at cost. The Church provided the space.

The Churches Attorney learned of this ongoing endeavor and advised that the Church was "Liable" for any alleged wrongful medical damages.

The Church then met with Members of the State Legislature to ask that they pass a "Good Samaritan" Law exempting such Programs aimed at the indigent.

The State Bar Association stated that they reserve the absolute Right to sue anyone, anytime for any reason.

The Proposed Law was not passed.

Americans are very big hearted and very charitable if only the Gubermit would get out of the way.

And lastly, no where does the Constitution of the United States state that one individual must must pay for anothers medical care or retirement.

 

[uscitizen]

by 1986, Social Security was technically off-budget, but it was still being used in the deficit calculations. Absent other legislative change, this would have continued until 1993. However, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law.

The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

To illustrate the difference between the "on-budget" and "off-budget" parts of the federal budget, we can observe that for fiscal year 2004 the following figures were reported by OMB:

Unified Budget Without "off-budget" items



Unified budget without off budget items
Receipts $1.8 trillion $1.3 trillion
Expenditures $2.2 trillion $1.9 trillion
Deficit $412 billion $567 billion
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Table 1.1, pg.
So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds