- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Sorry, I don't take loans out in the names of my children, it's a morally corrupt practice.
A tax resistor eh?
Sorry, I don't take loans out in the names of my children, it's a morally corrupt practice.
You have to add in changes in behavior.
Something that isn't easy to account for, but has been proven to lower costs.
It tends to reduce, unnecessary use.
Technically speaking, those are future liabilities, so they aren't responsible for any debt we've incurred thus far; however, in the event those special-issue Treasury Securities are redeemed, they will have to be financed with debt or tax revenues.
A tax resistor eh?
What is the difference between SS backed by treasuries and SS backed by a warehouse full of cash money?
If treasuries are no good you might as well just tear up your check book and all your other accounts, because they're not worth the paper they're written on.
What is the difference between SS backed by treasuries and SS backed by a warehouse full of cash money?
A: there is no difference. Treasuries are as good (or bad) as cash.
Amazing that you would continue to support the failures of conservatism and blind hyperpartisanship.
Your assumption is that the typical elderly person has the medical knowledge necessary to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary care. Got a pain in the abdomen? Maybe it'll go away and you can save some money. Ooops! Turns out it was metastatic cancer.
Not a great idea. That's what primary care doctors are for.
Now you are getting the picture!
There is a significant difference. A Treasury Security is basically an acknowledgement by the Federal government of its indebtedness to the holder of the security. In the case of the SS "trust fund", the issuer and the holder, that is, the borrower and the lender, are the same entity, e.g., the Federal government. In essence, the Federal government is acknowledging its indebtedness to itself. A warehouse full of "cash money", on the other hand, is a real economic asset that can be used to pay the liabilities incurred by SS.
Brian
No.
I mean making Medicare beneficiaries, pay more for their services, that they use.
And what gives cash value? It's just paper, right? What makes it worth more than a knapkin?
A: it's backed by the U.S. Treasury -- just like Treasuries.
If you aren't going to address the points I've made by providing a substantive analysis, then I'll simply forgo any future attempts to have a rational dialog with you.
Brian
Going to the doc for a cold, when there is nothing the doc can do, is a waste of medical resources.
I'm sorry but you can't "fear" me out of the this position.
There is no perfect answer.
That is not lowering cost, that is transferring costs to those that can least afford it.
You think incurring debt, in the name of people who have no say, is alright?
More telling about you than anything else.
And what gives cash value? It's just paper, right? What makes it worth more than a knapkin?
A: it's backed by the U.S. Treasury -- just like Treasuries.
As usual with Obama, Delivery was an A, Content a C or D.
Yes, do you have a problem with that? Why should the Govt. take any part of that money instead of allowing the individual that took the risk to spend it as they see fit?
Your point was addressed here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/117590-state-union-address-51.html#post1060145114
Problem is, people who don't understand that the doctor can't cure a cold ... still aren't going to understand it if they have to pay more to go to the doctor. I'm not trying to scare you out of your position. But I don't want your position to scare people from going to see the doctor if they're sick. Famous last words: "ah, it's probably just heartburn."
So by your reasoning, I am not responsible for the debt for our excessive military spending, or the optional wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq?
Again, false premise. Workers losing a job is a loss of revenue source but his ability to generate revenue from another employer is not reduced. There are laws that require employers to PAY employees for labor worked, receiving revenue. There are no laws to protect investors revenue. If an investment is lost its lost WITHOUT the ability to generate revenue somewhere else, ESPECIALLY if a business fails.
The elderly are the wealthiest in our society.
Why do think a regressive tax on the less wealthy is a good thing?
Seems like you're supporting taxing the poor, to benefit the rich.
The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being | Pew Social & Demographic Trends
Same reason anyone pays taxes. They benefit from government services, so they contribute to paying for them. It's not a secret.
:coffeepap
Reducing spending and slightly increasing taxes to pay the interest plus a little more principle, is all that is necessary.
Of course we can just inflate our way out of it.