Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118

Thread: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

  1. #101
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The Federal Govt. isn't an insurance company....
    Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you're missing the point. Here it is again!

    Pay-as-you-go systems are not Ponzi schemes.

    The fact that SS is non-profit, and insurance companies are, doesn't change anything about the analogy.


    that money was never supposed to be put on budget but rather in a lock box. That didn't happen....
    Yes, actually, it did happen. The trust fund hasn't disappeared, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine it won't be repaid.

    US federal securities are widely regarded as the most secure government bonds in the world. If the US government is somehow incapable of paying back the intergovernmental bonds, we have a lot more problems on our hands than the SS shortfall.

    Plus... if we didn't use the trust fund for intergovernmental loans, we'd just borrow the money on the open markets, while that capital sits there and does nothing.


    You also have no idea where the funds are going to come from to pay for future long term retirees since there aren't enough workers to pay those retirees with existing dollars.
    You're conflating two very different parameters here.

    On one hand, there's the SS shortfalls. SS costs more than the taxes specifically allocated for it. This is an artificial problem, caused by an irrational insistence that the ONLY valid way to fund SS, from now into perpetuity, is via payroll taxes.

    On the other, there's the intergovernmental loans. The federal government is borrowing from the trust fund, and the federal government is obligated to pay back those loans. The revenues to pay that back can come from ANY federal revenue source OR future borrowing. In addition, as we draw down from the trust fund, there is less we're required to pay back.

    You're basically screaming about the wrong issues. The idea that "SS is broke" is a fiction. What really matters is how much we pay individual recipients, and how much we're willing to pay in taxes for that safety net.

  2. #102
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    There's a lot of things that are increased above sequester numbers. Why don't you point out where the wasted spending is? I can go on a list that ranges from spending to combat anti-biotic resistant bacteria to increased spending to the National Science Foundation.
    Since much of the Federal Govt. is duplicated at the state and local levels much of the Federal govt is redundant and not needed. I have posted my view of the Federal Govt. before but as usual you ignored it. We need about a 1.2 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and return all social programs to the states except SS and Medicare which were supposed to be self funding but not used to fund the daily operating expenses of the Govt.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you're missing the point. Here it is again!

    Pay-as-you-go systems are not Ponzi schemes.

    The fact that SS is non-profit, and insurance companies are, doesn't change anything about the analogy.



    Yes, actually, it did happen. The trust fund hasn't disappeared, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine it won't be repaid.

    US federal securities are widely regarded as the most secure government bonds in the world. If the US government is somehow incapable of paying back the intergovernmental bonds, we have a lot more problems on our hands than the SS shortfall.

    Plus... if we didn't use the trust fund for intergovernmental loans, we'd just borrow the money on the open markets, while that capital sits there and does nothing.



    You're conflating two very different parameters here.

    On one hand, there's the SS shortfalls. SS costs more than the taxes specifically allocated for it. This is an artificial problem, caused by an irrational insistence that the ONLY valid way to fund SS, from now into perpetuity, is via payroll taxes.

    On the other, there's the intergovernmental loans. The federal government is borrowing from the trust fund, and the federal government is obligated to pay back those loans. The revenues to pay that back can come from ANY federal revenue source OR future borrowing. In addition, as we draw down from the trust fund, there is less we're required to pay back.

    You're basically screaming about the wrong issues. The idea that "SS is broke" is a fiction. What really matters is how much we pay individual recipients, and how much we're willing to pay in taxes for that safety net.
    The pay as you go system was put into place, LBJ put SS on budget and created the unified budget. More money was coming in than going out and LBJ and Congress used that money to fund the daily operations of the Federal Govt. You don't have a problem with that?

    SS is backed by the U.S. govt. so tell me where the money is going to come from to fund SS and Medicare shortfalls? That money tree, printing it, or borrowing it. All cost the American people more than they should and more than it is worth which will make our existing dollars worthless.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,987

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yes, I expected that from you, when you create an entitlement program and then try to take it away that does indeed happen which is why you create entitlement programs only as a last resort. That is happening with ACA now, another entitlement program that will cost more than intended and do less than intended except to the bureaucrats that created it. Liberalism loves having people like you who has no problem spending in the name of compassion to generate more dependence and thus job security.
    And what gives you the right to judge which people should be cut off from the thing they are dependent on?

    Would you make such a decision knowing that there will be consequences for the people on these programs?
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  5. #105
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    And what gives you the right to judge which people should be cut off from the thing they are dependent on?

    Would you make such a decision knowing that there will be consequences for the people on these programs?
    If people aren't given something in the first place there is nothing to cut them off from. Did you have parents? If so did they teach you anything about personal responsibility?

    You don't think that social programs are abused by people and that we truly need a 4 trillion dollar budget to help those truly in need of help or unable to help themselves? What exactly does your state do about social problems and why should a bureaucrat in D.C. handle a state and local program for you?

  6. #106
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The pay as you go system was put into place, LBJ put SS on budget and created the unified budget. More money was coming in than going out and LBJ and Congress used that money to fund the daily operations of the Federal Govt. You don't have a problem with that?
    It's always been pay as you go. (See Fact 2 on 5 facts about Social Security | Pew Research Center )

    I don't have a problem with a unified budget. That should be screamingly obvious by now. Aren't you reading my posts?

    I don't have a problem with the federal government borrowing from the trust fund. It should be obvious that I have absolutely no worries that it will be paid back. How many times do I need to say it?

    Neither does the entire global financial establishment, who are happy to lend money to the US government, even at zero interest rates. People and financial institutions around the world were willing to lose money by lending it to the US federal government. Have fun wrapping your mind around THAT one.


    SS is backed by the U.S. govt. so tell me where the money is going to come from to fund SS and Medicare shortfalls?
    I already have, several times. It will be repaid with future tax revenues and future borrowings.

    Also, as I already noted: In the worst case scenario, the trust fund will continue to shrink, which means less and less borrowing. At that point, we will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow, or a combination of the three, to continue SS.


    All cost the American people more than they should and more than it is worth which will make our existing dollars worthless.
    See, there you go again, conflating the issues.

    Borrowing from the trust fund doesn't increase any of the costs very much. The government is borrowing from itself, at rates indexed to inflation. The only real costs there are opportunity costs, e.g. maybe we could borrow more cheaply on the private markets, or invest the funds and get a higher return.

    Government borrowing doesn't cause inflation. If it did, we'd see massive inflation over the past 7 years. Instead, we've seen low inflation, in fact below the Fed target.

    Your dollars are fine.

    Thus, for the nth time: The real issue is what benefits we want to provide, how much will SS cost us, and are we willing to pay that cost. Acting like payroll taxes are the only way to do it, or borrowing from the trust fund, are distractions that are counterproductive to the debate.

  7. #107
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's always been pay as you go. (See Fact 2 on 5 facts about Social Security | Pew Research Center )

    I don't have a problem with a unified budget. That should be screamingly obvious by now. Aren't you reading my posts?

    I don't have a problem with the federal government borrowing from the trust fund. It should be obvious that I have absolutely no worries that it will be paid back. How many times do I need to say it?

    Neither does the entire global financial establishment, who are happy to lend money to the US government, even at zero interest rates. People and financial institutions around the world were willing to lose money by lending it to the US federal government. Have fun wrapping your mind around THAT one.



    I already have, several times. It will be repaid with future tax revenues and future borrowings.

    Also, as I already noted: In the worst case scenario, the trust fund will continue to shrink, which means less and less borrowing. At that point, we will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow, or a combination of the three, to continue SS.



    See, there you go again, conflating the issues.

    Borrowing from the trust fund doesn't increase any of the costs very much. The government is borrowing from itself, at rates indexed to inflation. The only real costs there are opportunity costs, e.g. maybe we could borrow more cheaply on the private markets, or invest the funds and get a higher return.

    Government borrowing doesn't cause inflation. If it did, we'd see massive inflation over the past 7 years. Instead, we've seen low inflation, in fact below the Fed target.

    Your dollars are fine.

    Thus, for the nth time: The real issue is what benefits we want to provide, how much will SS cost us, and are we willing to pay that cost. Acting like payroll taxes are the only way to do it, or borrowing from the trust fund, are distractions that are counterproductive to the debate.
    I have indeed read your posts, have you read mine? A pay as you go system was set up to fund retirement supplemental insurance and was funded by FICA or payroll taxes. It wasn't put on budget until LBJ did it in the 60's and he did so to fund the Vietnam War because more was coming in than going out. That isn't what SS and payroll taxes were created to fund and that is what you don't seem to understand

    Yes, I know you support the unified budget just like you don't have any problem with your excise taxes on gasoline not funding infrastructure so the govt. can spend the money and come back to the taxpayer and ask for more.

    Doesn't appear that you will ever get it. I want SS to do what it was supposed to do, not fund the daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt. I don't want SS IOU's sitting in a govt. office somewhere and having to be funded by printing the cash or borrowing the money because that was never the intent and didn't have to happen.

    What bothers me is that you don't have a problem with your SS and Medicare Contributions being used to fund the daily operation of the United States.

    Here is an example of the problem you want to ignore and this is just for Medicare

    U.S. health plans have history of cost overruns - Washington Times

    Seems like with all liberal politicians all dollars are the same regardless of the obligations and when you do that you create an 18.2 trillion dollar debt. Suggest you not try this accounting in real life. You save for retirement and pull that money out because of some other personal expense and since you don't have the money when you retire and cannot print it, what do you do?

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Since much of the Federal Govt. is duplicated at the state and local levels much of the Federal govt is redundant and not needed. I have posted my view of the Federal Govt. before but as usual you ignored it. We need about a 1.2 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and return all social programs to the states except SS and Medicare which were supposed to be self funding but not used to fund the daily operating expenses of the Govt.
    I would argue that SS and medicate should be state programs as well, but otherwise youre exactly right. The federal govt should be concerned with only defense and justice, not social welfare.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    I would argue that SS and medicate should be state programs as well, but otherwise youre exactly right. The federal govt should be concerned with only defense and justice, not social welfare.

    The only reason I believe it should be with the Federal Govt. is that Americans should be able to get their "contributions" back as they were forced to contribute. It should be eliminated going forward with all those forced to contributed grandfathered in and given what they were promised.

  10. #110
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    A pay as you go system was set up to fund retirement...
    Yes, I've been telling you that for several days now. What I'm saying is that there is no reason that particular taxation system needs to be set in stone, unchangeable, from time immemorial.

    We change these things all the time. We added disability in 1956, Medicare in 1965. Even Reagan changed it -- in 1983, he signed a bill that made up to half of Social Security income taxable.

    Shouting "that's not how it was supposed to be!" is pointless and unpersuasive. Times change. Our nation's needs change. Our sources of revenue change. That's life, deal with it.


    Yes, I know you support the unified budget just like you don't have any problem with your excise taxes on gasoline not funding infrastructure so the govt. can spend the money and come back to the taxpayer and ask for more.
    Taxes allegedly used for specific purposes are an accounting gimmick and a lie, and you're falling for it. They don't restrain anyone from adding new taxes. In fact, all these different little taxes make taxation more confusing and easier to tack on a new tax. Unified budgets are honest budgets.

    For example, let's say revenues from a state lottery are supposed to go to education, and the state pulls in $50 million a year. Great, huh? Sure, except that the state can simply reduce general tax revenue payments to the education budget by $50 million. It's a shell game, and you're falling for it.


    I want SS to do what it was supposed to do, not fund the daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt.
    Social Security DOES do what it's supposed to do. SS has never failed to make good on its benefits payments. The federal government has never failed to pay back the special bonds. The federal government is not obligated to only pay it back with payroll taxes.


    What bothers me is that you don't have a problem with your SS and Medicare Contributions being used to fund the daily operation of the United States.
    That's because I actually understand how the intergovernmental loans work. They're not a problem, and they don't result in increased government spending.


    Here is an example of the problem you want to ignore and this is just for Medicare


    The WT article is talking about the problems of cost projections. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing.


    Seems like with all liberal politicians all dollars are the same regardless of the obligations and when you do that you create an 18.2 trillion dollar debt.
    And yet again, you are drawing flawed conclusions.

    Unified budgets don't increase spending and don't create deficits. That's sheer nonsense. They provide a more HONEST picture of revenues and expenditures.

    Deficits are a result of spending more than a government takes in revenue. It's a result of both spending more than you've got, AND cutting taxes.


    Suggest you not try this accounting in real life. You save for retirement and pull that money out because of some other personal expense and since you don't have the money when you retire and cannot print it, what do you do?
    Your analogy doesn't work, for several reasons.

    SS is not comparable to an individual's retirement savings. It's PAY AS YOU GO.
    The SS trust fund is NOT DEPLETED because of the intergovernmental loans. Everything is paid back, on time, with interest.
    The government can borrow money indefinitely. I can't.

    The things you are worried about are PSEUDO-PROBLEMS that are distracting us all from the real issues. How much do we want SS to cover? How much will that cost us? Are we willing to pay that cost?

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 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
  •