Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 142

Thread: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

    Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.
    Fascinating, there is nothing wrong with this vast ponzi scheme, yet others more qualified than you would suggest otherwise:

    1. Is there really a Social Security crisis?
    Some people say Social Security's financing problems are just a function of pessimistic economic projections. If the economy grows faster, they say, Social Security won't go broke. And so they then ask, "Why make big changes now for a problem that may never occur?" Unfortunately, that view is wrong.

    Two independent panels of experts examined the trustees' projections of how our workforce and economy will grow. The panels found the trustees' estimates to be reasonable or maybe even a little optimistic regarding the future of the Social Security system's financing. In other words, instead of a "phony crisis," we might actually have something even worse than expected.

    Social Security is safe today but will run deficits in just 12 years. That's not a very long time to fix the world's biggest government program. Moreover, the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become. For every year that we wait, Social Security reform will cost an additional $600 billion.


    FAQs About Social Security Choice

    Social Security funds are invested in Government Obligations; in other words, they become PUBLIC debt as part of the ponzi scheme and the Government spends this money now to cover their budget shorfalls issuing an IOU to be paid at a later date.

    Under the current runaway spending, this just means that the debt piles up in IOUs the government can't even pay today.

    But the SS "trust fund" (this word makes me laugh when I see it), is heading for insolvency. I think it is already here and even their conservative estimates are 35 years out.

    In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 35 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.
    The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program.


    Unfortunately, the current adminstration does not want to have this debate. It means MORE deficits and MORE taxes.

    But there is MORE:

    Social Security Fund Faces $13.6 Trillion Shortfall
    Posted Sep 25, 07 4:27 AM CDT in Business, US

    (Newser) – Slashing benefits or hiking taxes—or both—is the only way to make the Social Security system solvent, reports a Treasury Department briefing paper. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned that faster economic growth alone won't solve the money problems of Social Security, which faces a $13.6 trillion shortfall in the "indefinite future," Bloomberg reports.


    Social Security Fund Faces $13.6 Trillion Shortfall - US news | Newser

    To address this shortcoming, it is calculated how much money must be placed in the Social Security Trust Fund right now in order to finance projected deficits for the infinite horizon. This amounts to $13.6 trillion,[92] [93] or an additional $83,345 for every person currently paying Social Security taxes.[94] [95]

    * This figure of $3.7 trillion, which needed to be added to the trust fund and begin earning interest in 2004, is roughly equivalent to the combined market capitalization of all thirty companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Average (in September 2008), or an additional $23,680 from every person who paid Social Security taxes in 2004

    Social Security - Just Facts

    Yes folks, this program that sucks out such a HUGE portion of your income and your employers income and pays you on average $12,675 before Medicare taxes BUT ONLY if you don’t earn more than individuals with incomes of more than $34,000 a year and couples with incomes of more than $44,000 a year, then you must pay taxes on up to 85% of their old age benefits. What a freaking DEAL!

  2. #112
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,406

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Fascinating, there is nothing wrong with this vast ponzi scheme, yet others more qualified than you would suggest otherwise:
    Well, one could quote organizations whose stated purpose is the privatize social security, which is a bit like quoting communists when critiquing capitalism, or one could just look at the governments own numbers which carry a bit more weight behind them.

    n the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 35 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.
    Trust Fund FAQs

    So, once again, worst case scenario, the fund is solvent for another 35 years, which means even in that case the fund would have been fully solvent for over 110 years, making it the most successful large trust in the history of civilization. This "ponzi scheme" as you call it will have by then helped fund the retirements of hundreds of millions of seniors over the course of its existence.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  3. #113
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,406

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is what happens when you give data to people who do not comprehend how to read the data in a historical context. The Carter Years, had you lived through them, were some of the worst years in memory. High unemployment numbers, high interest rates and the taking of our embassy in Iran were the highlights of the Carter Administration.

    Johnson's was one of fighting the war in Vietnam from the White House costing the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women.

    Johnson ranked #1 in GDP growth; but we must also understand that the reason for it was the War in Vietnam; a war that was started under JFK and accelerated by Johnson under false pretenses. blah blah blah
    Do you what failures do? They consistently blame their poor performance on their predecessors or circumstances they see as beyond their control. It is the hallmark excuse for failures and their apologists.

    I presented the numbers over decades. Thats a huge sampling, yet Republicans consistently underperformed on the economic front. Now, you can choose not to accept that historical correlation just like some hard core conservatives choose not accept modern science when they still don't accept evolution or the age the earth. Its a choice you have made, rationalize it all you want. We can go round and round and round on this. I am satisfied with the leading economic indicators over the course of over a 50 year timeframe myself. If your not, then your not. I can't change that.

    However, there is no doubt in my mind that if all the economic indicators had shown that Republicans took the top 3 spots in terms of economic performance over the last 60 years that you would be hold them up as evidence that they were better for the economy.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 02-24-09 at 07:24 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #114
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    How pathetic. You post a blog comment to prove me that I am wrong on something I am right about also. Just like you always try to prove me wrong. Its a FACT that average European broadband speeds are better than American ones, and its a FACT that Japanese broadband speeds are better than European ones. You can deny that until you are blue and green and red like you always deny what I am saying. But you are just lying to yourself like usual.
    And if you were capable of reading and comprehending, you would understand that there's more important things than simply "average broadband speed." Things like penetration, accessibility, and productivity are fare more relevant if you're trying to evaluate the usefulness of the internet.

    No matter IF that is true or IF he is withdrawing all troops, again you fail to see the point of even mentioning the withdrawal of troops, which as I said would be saving the US a lot of money. But again, you do have some trouble of seeing context when I am posting, perhaps its too complicated for you?
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is that you were earlier talking about how this was going to save us hundreds of billions of dollars per year, when in reality, even in an absolute best case scenario it will be nothing like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Ok, I think you would have a great point if we were just talking about over the last 25 years or so. However, we are talking about nearly the last 80 years, over that large of a time frame, the economy has fairer significantly better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations. That is quite a long time frame for a solid correlation to develop.
    The problem isn't the length of time, it's that that method of evaluation is intrinsically flawed. The effects of government actions on the economy are not felt immediately, but rather over years and decades. The only way in which this would be a logical method of evaluation would be if the actions of a previous administration had no effect on the actions of following administrations. I think it's pretty evident that that's not the case.

    Say I'm elected president and I enact tax cuts and increased spending that are projected to result in immediate economic growth but ballooning long term debt. 4 years later, you're elected to replace me and decide to raise taxes and cut spending because you're concerned about paying down the debt and are willing to take the short term economic hit.

    If you go back and look at the economy during my term, it will look fantastic. During yours, it will look terrible. Does that mean I was "better for the economy" than you? Of course not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    If nothing is done, Social Security will be fully solvent through 2042. That means worst case scenario, the program will have been fully solvent for around 110 years since its start
    This is untrue.

    The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2007 and is projected to increase to 6.1 percent of GDP in 2035, and then decline to 5.8 percent of GDP by 2048 and remain at that level. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.70 percent of taxable payroll ($4.3 trillion in present value terms), down from 1.95 percent projected in last year's report. This decrease is due primarily to changes in projection methods. Although the combined OASDI program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund does not; in addition, OASDI continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 78 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.
    That means that as of 2017, SS will be running a deficit. Instead of serving as a huge positive to our balance sheet, it will start becoming a massive drag. 2041 is when the "trust fund" would be exhausted, if there actually were one.

    Please provide an example of any large trust in the private sector, in the history of civilization, anywhere on earth, that has been solvent and successful for that long.
    1. Nothing about SS is a "success" unless you ignore future obligations.

    2. Are you asking for an example of any investment vehicle that has lasted as long as SS? There are plenty.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 02-24-09 at 07:56 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #115
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,010

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Its a FACT that average European broadband speeds are better than American ones, and its a FACT that Japanese broadband speeds are better than European ones.
    Oh good god. Can your personal identity be this fragile? Must there always be a contest for which you annoyingly wave cheaply made pom poms? Do you know anything about communications at all? And before you run your mouth, I have planned, built, and managed comm systems in America, Asia, and Europe. And by comm systems I mean switchboards, radios, and satellites.


    The average user in continental Europe and just about all of Germany gains access to the world through the ISDN. The connection speed can connect at speeds up to 128 Kbps. ISDN is expensive and it is hard to establish connections, but once established it is reliable. But this connection speed is slow when we consider that any connection to the customer of 256 kbit/s or greater is more concisely considered broadband Internet. This is why ISDN is not saturated throughout the US as it is in Europe. In fact, the running joke around the world about ISDN is that it stands for "It Still Does Nothing" or "I Still Don't Know." ISDN peaked in the United States in the 1990s prior to the availability of DSL and cable modem technologies. Japan also made the leap from the German invented ISDN into a faster greater world.

    Now, if you wish to boast about basic E1 as compared to the North American and Japanese basic standard T1, then you have a tiny stage. Of course, now we are talking about data rates....not connection speeds. The basic T1 enjoys speeds of 1.544Mbps with 24 channels (with robbed bit techonlogy; meaning full payload.) The basic E1 enjoys speeds of 2.048Mbps with 32 channels (two are stripped for over head and signaling leaving 30 for payload). Oh, but this is the basic. Of course, practical application has us dealing with T3s (44.736Mbps) in America now while Europe deals in E3s (34.368Mbps).

    And we can talk about the next technology, which is VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) telephone systems. Something American and Japan have been heading into very fast. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army has replaced just about all of the old TRI-TAC equipment with REDCOM/VX systems. The reason we have to maintain a small inventory of TRI-TAC gear is because European forces within NATO are still catching up to this technology. And while European forces are catching up to using Commercial Circuit Switches and the use of POTS phones, American forces are already forcing our fleet into VOIP.

    But the American military taps into Europe's ISDN sometimes in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of VTC. Other than that, we utilize the DISN.
    Last edited by MSgt; 02-25-09 at 01:28 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #116
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,010

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Cut in half in four years? Didn't Iriemon preach about how generations to come will suffer under the deficit that "Hitler Bush" built?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    First they say "no no we didn't mean Nationalization"..then Bernake comes out and says "we will likely exit the recession in 1 year"..end of day Obama pops out and gives a speech.

    Tomorrow the "hope" is they will be able to play up a continuation of the positive market reaction to the first two by claiming its because Obama's speech made people "hopeful" again.


    Its a game.

  8. #118
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    What I'm really looking forward to is the roll-out of the universal health care plan... along with estimates of the costs involved.

    This is going to be one wild ride folks!


  9. #119
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,445
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Now your trying to change the argument. You stated that Social Security was a big failure. Your based this on its future shortfalls.

    I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

    Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.
    No, I am trying to make a point.

    Illustrating how the Liberal works his and her Voodoo. Forget the foundation of the country, the firewall that should prevent this type of aggressive intervention into our lives and the market, and once the firewall is breached... who cares?! Let's take more money, more liberty, more freedom... make more government programs... wasting more tax payers money in the process.

    It's a play for power... making people dependent on Mommy Dearest... government.

    We shouldn't even be concerned about this because rightfully it should not exist. Where in the Constitution does it allow for this?

    Are we Americans?
    Or are we Marxists?

    Medicare and Social Security Bankrupt
    WSJ

    March 23, 2005

    The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041, a year earlier than previously estimated, the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health-care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020.

    The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term.
    Bush tried, Democrats lied.

    But things were different a decade ago.
    Not really, the Dems were just blowing smoke.
    Byron York on Social Security on National Review Online
    In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

    "What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

    Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

    A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

    Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

    "Save Social Security first," said Gore.

    "Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

    "Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

    "Save Social Security first," said Boxer.


    Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

    Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.
    Last edited by zimmer; 02-25-09 at 04:38 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  10. #120
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    Oh good god. Can your personal identity be this fragile? Must there always be a contest for which you annoyingly wave cheaply made pom poms? Do you know anything about communications at all? And before you run your mouth, I have planned, built, and managed comm systems in America, Asia, and Europe. And by comm systems I mean switchboards, radios, and satellites.


    The average user in continental Europe and just about all of Germany gains access to the world through the ISDN. The connection speed can connect at speeds up to 128 Kbps. ISDN is expensive and it is hard to establish connections, but once established it is reliable. But this connection speed is slow when we consider that any connection to the customer of 256 kbit/s or greater is more concisely considered broadband Internet. This is why ISDN is not saturated throughout the US as it is in Europe. In fact, the running joke around the world about ISDN is that it stands for "It Still Does Nothing" or "I Still Don't Know." ISDN peaked in the United States in the 1990s prior to the availability of DSL and cable modem technologies. Japan also made the leap from the German invented ISDN into a faster greater world.

    Now, if you wish to boast about basic E1 as compared to the North American and Japanese basic standard T1, then you have a tiny stage. Of course, now we are talking about data rates....not connection speeds. The basic T1 enjoys speeds of 1.544Mbps with 24 channels (with robbed bit techonlogy; meaning full payload.) The basic E1 enjoys speeds of 2.048Mbps with 32 channels (two are stripped for over head and signaling leaving 30 for payload). Oh, but this is the basic. Of course, practical application has us dealing with T3s (44.736Mbps) in America now while Europe deals in E3s (34.368Mbps).

    And we can talk about the next technology, which is VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) telephone systems. Something American and Japan have been heading into very fast. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army has replaced just about all of the old TRI-TAC equipment with REDCOM/VX systems. The reason we have to maintain a small inventory of TRI-TAC gear is because European forces within NATO are still catching up to this technology. And while European forces are catching up to using Commercial Circuit Switches and the use of POTS phones, American forces are already forcing our fleet into VOIP.

    But the American military taps into Europe's ISDN sometimes in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of VTC. Other than that, we utilize the DISN.
    Ridiculous, so many factual faults and errors that its not worth commenting.

    The average consumer in Europe gains access through wired broadband AND mobile broadband, just to your knowledge.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •