Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118

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

  1. #111
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.





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



    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.



    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?
    You are going to have to make your posts shorter if you want a response. Please tell me why you aren't upset that SS was intended to be for a retirement supplement and rather than be used for that purpose was put in the general fund to fund daily govt. obligations??

    I want SS to do what it was intended to do, be a supplement and I don't want the Federal Govt. using the funds to pay for daily govt. operations

    For some reason you don't believe that those Govt. IOU's have to be funded. Based upon the 4 trillion budget, the 18.2 trillion in debt, and the trillions owed to retirees, where does the govt. come up with that cash?

    What exactly do you mean that the unified budget isn't a problem? Have we really come to this where you don't understand long term obligations?? Do you really want your SS "contributions" to go to daily govt. operations?

    Why don't you do your own calculations and see how much money you would have at retirement if you took your money and your employers and put it in a simple savings account with historical interest rates over your 35 year working career?? Would that money be yours and your families. or the governments?

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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.
    Right, thats what I figured. Give back what you took, and then shut it down.

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,354

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You are going to have to make your posts shorter if you want a response. Please tell me why you aren't upset that SS was intended to be for a retirement supplement and rather than be used for that purpose was put in the general fund to fund daily govt. obligations??

    I want SS to do what it was intended to do, be a supplement and I don't want the Federal Govt. using the funds to pay for daily govt. operations

    For some reason you don't believe that those Govt. IOU's have to be funded. Based upon the 4 trillion budget, the 18.2 trillion in debt, and the trillions owed to retirees, where does the govt. come up with that cash?

    What exactly do you mean that the unified budget isn't a problem? Have we really come to this where you don't understand long term obligations?? Do you really want your SS "contributions" to go to daily govt. operations?

    Why don't you do your own calculations and see how much money you would have at retirement if you took your money and your employers and put it in a simple savings account with historical interest rates over your 35 year working career?? Would that money be yours and your families. or the governments?
    You should know that surpluses in all Govt. programs are converted into T-bills, not just SS. Why do you think those surpluses should sit idle instead of being invested in the US Govt.? Foreign investors are eager to invest but US citizens are not allowed? It is absurd.

  4. #114
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    You should know that surpluses in all Govt. programs are converted into T-bills, not just SS. Why do you think those surpluses should sit idle instead of being invested in the US Govt.? Foreign investors are eager to invest but US citizens are not allowed? It is absurd.

    who funds T-Bills? where does the money come from? Those surpluses aren't in T-Bills they are in IOU's. Do you realize that the debt is made up of both Public Debt and Intergovernment holdings? If T-Bills were assets there would be no debt in intergovt. holdings

  5. #115
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You are going to have to make your posts shorter if you want a response.
    Complex questions require complex answers. And my posts are shorter than the articles you link.


    Please tell me why you aren't upset that SS was intended to be for a retirement supplement and rather than be used for that purpose was put in the general fund to fund daily govt. obligations?
    1) The funds AREN'T being used to fund other parts of government.
    2) The funds are LOANED AND REPAID IN FULL. WITH INTEREST.
    3) There is no reason whatsoever to be worried that future intergovernmental loans won't be repaid.
    4) Nothing about the intergovernmental loans created or exacerbated the funding problems. The trust fund hasn't shrunk and it hasn't disappeared. Loaning out the trust fund didn't increase spending, or reduce revenues.
    5) If we had never set up the intergovernmental loans, SS would cost exactly the same as it does now, and the federal expenditures would be exactly the same. The federal government would just borrow the funds from somewhere else.
    6) Separating out taxes this way ISN'T REAL. It's an accounting gimmick. Wake the **** up.


    I want SS to do what it was intended to do
    IT DOES DO WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO.

    Social Security has NEVER failed to pay out benefits.

    The REAL problem is that FICA revenues don't pay enough to cover SS benefits. This has nothing whatsoever to do with intergovernmental loans. Those loans do not reduce revenues, or increase expenses. The loans are paid back with interest and do not lose value.


    For some reason you don't believe that those Govt. IOU's have to be funded.
    Incorrect. They are LOANS. They have to be repaid. They HAVE been repaid. They WILL be repaid.


    Based upon the 4 trillion budget, the 18.2 trillion in debt, and the trillions owed to retirees, where does the govt. come up with that cash?
    Taxes, fees and borrowing. Same as it ever was.

    And yet again: The problem isn't repaying the loans. As the trust fund shrinks, so do the liabilities. The REAL issue is that payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to pay for SS.


    What exactly do you mean that the unified budget isn't a problem? Have we really come to this where you don't understand long term obligations?? Do you really want your SS "contributions" to go to daily govt. operations?
    I've already answered this, you just didn't bother to read it.

    Separating out taxes this way is a gimmick, a lie, an accounting trick. IT'S NOT REAL. Wake up.


    Why don't you do your own calculations and see how much money you would have at retirement if you took your money and your employers and put it in a simple savings account with historical interest rates over your 35 year working career?
    Answering this question depends entirely on how much was paid in, marital status, and how long you live. If you die when you're 62, you lose out. If you die when you're 85, you've come out ahead. Married couples do better than singles. If you collect SS disability starting at age 35, then you're well ahead.

    You're forgetting that half of the FICA taxes are paid by your employer.

    You're forgetting that if people were paid instead of taxed, they'd owe taxes on that income.

    You're also assuming that people would, in fact, take those savings and put them into an IRA or similar investment. They don't. They just spend it. That's why we set up SS in the first place.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Complex questions require complex answers. And my posts are shorter than the articles you link.



    1) The funds AREN'T being used to fund other parts of government.
    2) The funds are LOANED AND REPAID IN FULL. WITH INTEREST.
    3) There is no reason whatsoever to be worried that future intergovernmental loans won't be repaid.
    4) Nothing about the intergovernmental loans created or exacerbated the funding problems. The trust fund hasn't shrunk and it hasn't disappeared. Loaning out the trust fund didn't increase spending, or reduce revenues.
    5) If we had never set up the intergovernmental loans, SS would cost exactly the same as it does now, and the federal expenditures would be exactly the same. The federal government would just borrow the funds from somewhere else.
    6) Separating out taxes this way ISN'T REAL. It's an accounting gimmick. Wake the **** up.



    IT DOES DO WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO.

    Social Security has NEVER failed to pay out benefits.

    The REAL problem is that FICA revenues don't pay enough to cover SS benefits. This has nothing whatsoever to do with intergovernmental loans. Those loans do not reduce revenues, or increase expenses. The loans are paid back with interest and do not lose value.



    Incorrect. They are LOANS. They have to be repaid. They HAVE been repaid. They WILL be repaid.



    Taxes, fees and borrowing. Same as it ever was.

    And yet again: The problem isn't repaying the loans. As the trust fund shrinks, so do the liabilities. The REAL issue is that payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to pay for SS.



    I've already answered this, you just didn't bother to read it.

    Separating out taxes this way is a gimmick, a lie, an accounting trick. IT'S NOT REAL. Wake up.



    Answering this question depends entirely on how much was paid in, marital status, and how long you live. If you die when you're 62, you lose out. If you die when you're 85, you've come out ahead. Married couples do better than singles. If you collect SS disability starting at age 35, then you're well ahead.

    You're forgetting that half of the FICA taxes are paid by your employer.

    You're forgetting that if people were paid instead of taxed, they'd owe taxes on that income.

    You're also assuming that people would, in fact, take those savings and put them into an IRA or similar investment. They don't. They just spend it. That's why we set up SS in the first place.
    Oh, Good Lord, you are absolutely amazing and totally buy the liberal bs. What the hell is a unified budget? How do you know your SS dollars aren't being used to fund the daily operation of the Govt?

    Funds are loaned to the Govt? where do those loans go and how are they repaid? My, my liberalism!!!

    SS has never failed to pay out benefits? Great, when did SS ever have to pay out the benefits to the retiring baby boomers. Where did all that money that was contributed to SS and Medicare that wasn't spent on SS and Medicare

    You really are very nave and I am sure you mean well but really you don't have a clue and buy what you are told. You want badly to believe the money will be there when you retire and it probably will be but where does it come from as there aren't enough workers to pay for the retirees thus the money will have to be borrowed or printed. Any idea how that affects the dollars you get back

    The only one forgetting seems to be you. Yes, my contribution and my employers contribution are both on my behalf. Where did that money go? Is it in that trust fund or is it in the form of an IOU? How are IOU's funded?

    We currently have a budget request for 4.0 trillion dollars. Included in that budget are something similar to the following from 2014

    Expenses

    Medicare 511.7
    Social security 850.5

    To cover that expense in 2014 was 965 billion dollars in SS and Medicare revenue from the workers/employers or a shortfall that had to be funded and tell me how? Yes, I know, other revenue because all dollars are the same in your world. The problem is there was a 500 billion dollar deficit thus a short fall that had to be funded, how? Borrowing or printing. When does this cycle stop?

    You really have no idea what you are talking about and buy what you are told. WE have a serious problem with SS and Medicare because the money contributed HAS BEEN SPENT and yet IT WAS SPENT ON THE DAILY OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVT.

  7. #117
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Oh, Good Lord, you are absolutely amazing and totally buy the liberal bs. What the hell is a unified budget?
    Your posts make it very clear that you don't understand numerous critical aspects of the discussion.

    Your questions have been answered. It's not my problem if you refuse to read my responses.

  8. #118
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Your posts make it very clear that you don't understand numerous critical aspects of the discussion.

    Your questions have been answered. It's not my problem if you refuse to read my responses.
    Apparently a unified budget to you is the govt. spends taxdollars on daily operating expenses, that is all taxdollars but SS and Medicare. That is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to believe loaning the money from the Inter-government holdings and replacing them with IOU's really isn't spending the money and the money tree will pay those IOU's

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

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