Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

Thread: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

  1. #21
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I think both sides need to compromise. I think the best plan would be to eliminate the tax loopholes on some businesses that can get away with paying very little taxes and on some very wealthy individuals that can work the financial system to do the same thing. On the flip side I think we also need to reform and cut entitlement/welfare spending.
    Loopholes were designed by congress, then when they figured out they screwed up on some loopholes, so they came up the the AMT. Which was designed to effect the wealthy but now it almost effects everyone.
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  2. #22
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    and on some very wealthy individuals that can work the financial system to do the same thing.
    What about the 50% or so who work the political system to accomplish the same thing?

    If we're going back to Clinton tax rates on the rich, why not couple it with Clinton tax rates on everyone else and Clinton spending levels?

  3. #23
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I don't believe any serious political leader would eliminate Social Security. For all its challenges, the Program has made an important contribution in reducing the incidence of poverty among older Americans.

    The Program faces big challenges on account of the nation's demographics (increasing share of the population comprised by people eligible for Social Security coupled with a lengthening life span of people eligible for Social Security meaning more people receive Social Security for a longer period). Determining how to fully fund the Program's anticipated payouts is a relatively straightforward actuarial exercise. Modest reforms can address Social Security's actuarial imbalances.

    The health-related programs continue to drive the largest part of the nation's imbalances. Perhaps the leading challenge involved is finding an effective approach to slow the growth in medical expenditures, something that was largely outside the scope of the Affordable Care Act for which the primary goal was expanded health coverage, though CBO estimates some measure of savings albeit far short of what would be needed to eliminate the nation's long-term health-related imbalances. Medical expenditures cannot continue to grow at a multiple of the economy indefinitely, as foreign creditors won't be willing to pick up a growing share of those costs via financing U.S. deficits without the nation's debt stabilizing and then falling as a share of GDP over the longer-term. Numerous factors including debt-related risks, the need to tap savings countries such as Japan (aging + own debt challenges), and opportunities to earn attractive returns from growing economies outside the U.S., among other factors, could temper the flow of such funds to the U.S. in medium- and longer-term.

    Until the issue concerning rapid growth in medical expenditures in the U.S. is resolved--and it's highly complex--public and private health care policies will either become more expensive (premiums/other costs rising faster than incomes grow), offer less coverage (procedures, pharmaceutical products, and/or technologies), and/or run imbalances. The challenge involved extends beyond Medicare/Medicaid Program design. A disproportionate share of medical cost increases also arise from hospital care, not physician appointments or medical supplies. The growing utilization and high cost of long-term care (e.g., at nursing homes) is also an emerging factor and has implications for Medicaid. These challenges need to be addressed comprehensively and objectively.
    The healthcare issue grabs my attention. I drive persons to Medical appointments about 100 mile away. Lots of discussions about problems, costs, paperwork, professionalism or lack thereof, etc. For the most part, all the medical care is excellent. Now the billing is another matter. It is not uncommon for a surgeon to charge $8000.00 for an outpatient surgery and then when the Insurance pays the bill and only covers $5600.00, then the surgeon says to forget the portion of the bill not covered. Soounds like a good guy. This is both Medicare and bought insurances. The surgeon sounds like the good guy until you figure out he bills "really high" to make sure he gets the maximum that the insurance will pay. There seems to be no set list of fees and this is how they make sure they get paid the "max." That is why they forgive the amount not covered. Although if the patient is wealthy it might not be forgiven. This seems like some kind of hole/flaw in the system which is about money of course. Or, it is a typical example of gov't involvement. Anybody else experienced this?

  4. #24
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    Actually, social security wasn't designed the way it is running now. Many years ago congress took money from the social security funds and it nearly brankrupted the program. It is designed as an insurance, you pay in with the promise to get retirement money and medical care when you reach retirement age. People who work physically hard jobs take a beating for 30 or 40 years and they earned the retirement and need the medical care. Those who work physically easy jobs might be able to retire later than others, but they paid into the program with the promise of retirement at age 65. When the US government makes a promise to the people, the people should expect that promise to be honored. As for programs for the poor, that money gets spent. There is a study that shows for every dollar spent on food stamps, the return on that back to the government is $1.40. Ending SNAP would cause needless suffering and harm the economy. Do we really want to be a nation that allows our poor, disabled and children to starve? Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people to be in poor health and die without medical care simply because they can't afford to pay for it? That is not the way I want American to be. I think it is important to invest in our citizens and in the long run we will have a stronger healthier workforce.
    That is all well and good but you must be willing to pay taxes for this. The absurd idea now being advanced by the left is that only "the rich" will be taxed "a bit more" to fund this mess. If your food stamp "investment" nonsense were true then why not give them to everyone? Taking a dollar from citizen A to give it to citizen B does not create $1.40 in gov't revenue.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #25
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    It's not really a question of whether or not we need to cut it... it's a question of when and how. Current benefit levels are unsustainable.
    They are sustainable until 2033. If we get busy now shoring up SS, it is fixable. The question is, how do we fix it. I like means testing for a start. There are a lot of options, but we need to take action now.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    They are sustainable until 2033. If we get busy now shoring up SS, it is fixable. The question is, how do we fix it. I like means testing for a start. There are a lot of options, but we need to take action now.
    Means testing is a cut. It can't be fixed without cuts.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    When the US government makes a promise to the people, the people should expect that promise to be honored.
    That's what their saying in Greece and Spain. The problem is they over-promised, same here they promised entitlements but it was never funded properly.


    As for programs for the poor, that money gets spent. There is a study that shows for every dollar spent on food stamps, the return on that back to the government is $1.40.
    Do I understand you correctly, for every dollar the government gives you to buy food, the government get back $1.40. So if that's the case, then if the government gave every person a $1,000 they get back $1,400. So under that logic we should have the strongest economy ever in US History. Obama borrowed and spent 6 trillion in just 4 yrs and will borrow and spend another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a whopping 10 trillion in just 8 yrs. Thus Obama will receive the 10 trillion back plus 4 trillion in profit.


    Ending SNAP would cause needless suffering and harm the economy. Do we really want to be a nation that allows our poor, disabled and children to starve?
    Maybe you can site one person in this country that has starved to death in the streets, that was not a suicide or a murder.

    Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people to be in poor health and die without medical care simply because they can't afford to pay for it? That is not the way I want American to be. I think it is important to invest in our citizens and in the long run we will have a stronger healthier workforce.
    We all love your generosity with other peoples money, have you forgot we are 16+ trillion in debt and under Obama we'll be over 20+ trillion in the next 4 yrs. Would it not be nice to be able to take care of every person in the world. Or do you draw the line with just illegals and US citizens. Surly you want to provide all the things you quoted to illegals here in this country. And if your willing to provide all this free stuff to illegals how about all the people in the world that have obeyed our laws that need help? Would they not come first over a person that has broke our laws?

    Let me rephrase your comment:
    Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people of the world to be in poor health and die without medical care because they can't afford to pay for it?
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  8. #28
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I don't believe any serious political leader would eliminate Social Security. For all its challenges, the Program has made an important contribution in reducing the incidence of poverty among older Americans.

    The Program faces big challenges on account of the nation's demographics (increasing share of the population comprised by people eligible for Social Security coupled with a lengthening life span of people eligible for Social Security meaning more people receive Social Security for a longer period). Determining how to fully fund the Program's anticipated payouts is a relatively straightforward actuarial exercise. Modest reforms can address Social Security's actuarial imbalances.

    The health-related programs continue to drive the largest part of the nation's imbalances. Perhaps the leading challenge involved is finding an effective approach to slow the growth in medical expenditures, something that was largely outside the scope of the Affordable Care Act for which the primary goal was expanded health coverage, though CBO estimates some measure of savings albeit far short of what would be needed to eliminate the nation's long-term health-related imbalances. Medical expenditures cannot continue to grow at a multiple of the economy indefinitely, as foreign creditors won't be willing to pick up a growing share of those costs via financing U.S. deficits without the nation's debt stabilizing and then falling as a share of GDP over the longer-term. Numerous factors including debt-related risks, the need to tap savings countries such as Japan (aging + own debt challenges), and opportunities to earn attractive returns from growing economies outside the U.S., among other factors, could temper the flow of such funds to the U.S. in medium- and longer-term.

    Until the issue concerning rapid growth in medical expenditures in the U.S. is resolved--and it's highly complex--public and private health care policies will either become more expensive (premiums/other costs rising faster than incomes grow), offer less coverage (procedures, pharmaceutical products, and/or technologies), and/or run imbalances. The challenge involved extends beyond Medicare/Medicaid Program design. A disproportionate share of medical cost increases also arise from hospital care, not physician appointments or medical supplies. The growing utilization and high cost of long-term care (e.g., at nursing homes) is also an emerging factor and has implications for Medicaid. These challenges need to be addressed comprehensively and objectively.
    Yes, I agree that we have many challenges that need to be addressed. I see Obamacare as a good start. We have been needing to address the health care problem for a long time now. Medical costs rise, hospitals can't turn people away so the government pays for the uninsured to be treated at a high cost. By providing preventative care and less expensive care at doctors offices and clinics will bring down the cost the tax payers pitch in. It will also create a stronger more productive workforce. I can also see that providing health care, as much as possible, to our citizens will lower the crime rate and drug use. There are a lot of people who self medicate for depression and that leads to a whole host of socital issues.
    When people start talking about cutting spending, its not a matter of just cutting spending. There are things we must spend on in order to have a better return later. For example, when making out a personal budget, you wouldn't cut your spending on gas because then you wouldn't be able to get to work to bring in more revenue. I think so many people fail to see how that is an important part of this debate.
    As for Social Security, there are many fixes, but job growth will be a huge factor in the programs sustainability. We have about 20 years to fix it, so I'm all for getting that conversation going. So yes, these challenges do need to be addressed comprehensively and objectively. We need to view the issues from all sides to find the best solutions.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    I said so before, and will say again.

    I would not trust the IMF with cleaning my boots now that winter is here and they need cleaning. I wouldn't trust them with washing my car. They are a bunch of gangsters who take money from people and then loan it back to them for interest. They are a bunch of bullies who bully nations into doing what they want in order for them to receive more of their own money which the people have been forced, by treaty, to give to the IMF freely. They are also incompetent because every prediction they made, unless it was a doom and gloom one, was innacurate. Everytime they said that they turned a corner and things are looking up, they have been discredited by reality. Everybody who is anybody and works in the IMF need to be shot.

  10. #30
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That is all well and good but you must be willing to pay taxes for this. The absurd idea now being advanced by the left is that only "the rich" will be taxed "a bit more" to fund this mess. If your food stamp "investment" nonsense were true then why not give them to everyone? Taking a dollar from citizen A to give it to citizen B does not create $1.40 in gov't revenue.
    We have had a progressive income tax system for as long as I have been a live and longer. Over the past few decades the rich have increased their wealth because of investments the masses have made on infrastructure via the tax system. Those who benefit most from that investment should pay more. They are basically paying it forward like their parents and grandparents did before them. That is how we insure that our future generations will have an infrastructure they can thrive with. I don't see why this is such a big issue now. Insisting that the welathy class should get larger tax brakes makes no sense.
    We can not continue to be a great nation if we do not invest in our people, and our youth should have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had, it not more opportunities. Our economy can not sustain much longer if our middle class continues to shrink. We will eventually become a nation of rich and poor and nothing in between the two.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •