Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

  1. #71
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, actually, they came from CBO,
    Who are never wrong right?

    [QUOTE=Catawba;1059494200]
    the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts,
    n the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, employees of the Pew Research Center contributed a total of $4850 to Democratic candidates. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama received $4600 from a person who is or claimed to be an Editor at Pew Research Center. No Republicans received any campaign contributions in those two cycles.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/se...&submit=Submit

    During the same two election cycles, members of the Pew Charitable Trusts contributed $19,055 to Democratic candidates. Barack Obama received the lions share of these contributions at $11,755. Again, no Republican candidates received contributions from any member of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/se...&submit=Submit

    A bias in political contributions given solely to one party and in the majority to one candidate certainly would seem to be prejudicial to the analysis of data and reporting.



    Continue reading on Examiner.com: Pew science and the public report - PU the bias is potent - Birmingham science news | Examiner.com Pew science and the public report - PU the bias is potent - Birmingham science news | Examiner.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    and the Department of Defense:

    "In August 2010, CBO estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt: $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.[62]

    The non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts estimated in May 2010 that extending some or all of the Bush tax cuts would have the following impact under these scenarios:

    * Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years.
    * Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.3 trillion in the next decade.
    * Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $558 billion over the next 10 years."


    United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Republicans have a problem. The American people are concerned about the budget deficit and know enough basic arithmetic to understand that it can result from higher spending or lower revenues. Republicans, however, insist that taxes must not be increased by a single penny; indeed, they argue that the government doesn’t have a revenue problem, just a spending problem. Therefore, they will only consider spending cuts in the GOP controlled House, which included another $3 trillion worth of tax cuts in the budget they passed on April 15."
    GOP




    Source: U.S. Department of Defense

    Project America: Defense
    Here's the thing about your "numbers". They're wrong. Tax revenue projections always assume that nothing changes or, are most often built around "rosey" economic projections. Tax Revenues go up, short term around tax hikes then slowly fall off. Conversely history shows us tax BREAKS followed by the economic activity generated from people having more incentive to USE their money, go up.

    However much Defense spending is in relation to the world is immaterial.

    Here's another pie chart, I want you to take special notice of the size of Defense spending compared to the SS. Medicare, Medicaide outlays:



    SS 19.63%
    DoD 18.74%
    Unemployment 16.13%
    Medicare 12.79%
    Medicaide 8.18%

    You do the math here. Social spending = 56.74% of federal Spending, 2010.
    DoD? just under 19%.


    And you are worried about the Defense Spending?


    Let's just say you are 100% right, we end our military campaigns, slash the military budget "to comparable levels with the "rest of the world" and raise taxes.

    Guess what? We're still over $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and counting.

    Real genius with math you are.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #72
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Isn't that what we're always told? Just reform it? WE can make it solvent!!! And then a few years pass, and crisis looms. Stop the cycle.
    The solutions to make SS solvent are fairly obvious; it's unfortunate that the political will to make the changes has been lacking (although maybe some SS reforms will be one of the few good things to come from the current debt impasse). However it strains logic to think that because it's been politically difficult to reform SS, the solution is to get rid of it entirely, as though THAT wouldn't be politically difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio
    Wait... the people against SS or were not for it... would be punished by ending it? You have an odd definition of "punishment".
    Many people past or nearing retirement age have come to depend on SS, whether they support the program in principle or not. Hell, a lot of them don't even vote at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio
    You cannot fix SS, Medicaide or Medicare. You can only punt the problem down the line a few years. The three are unsustainable albatrosses on our present, and our futures.
    The problem with SS is pretty simple: The demographic trends in this country are such that the dependency ratio is increasing, which means that outlays will soon (if they haven't already) exceed revenues. So to solve that problem and make SS solvent, we need to figure out ways to control the growth of outlays and/or generate more revenue. The steps I have suggested for fixing SS do not involve "punting the problem down the line a few years." They will make SS solvent into the foreseeable future.

    Medicare/Medicaid are more difficult. The real problem here is the cost of health care. Eliminating the programs doesn't eliminate the cost of health care, it just shifts the costs to the private sector. In order to solve these problems, we need to get the cost of health care under control.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio
    Tell me, what NEED is there for Social Security?
    Like I said, I probably wouldn't include SS at all if I was creating a welfare state from scratch. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists, it has people who depend on it for income security in old age, and it requires some solutions that don't involve impoverishing millions of people.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #73
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The solutions to make SS solvent are fairly obvious; it's unfortunate that the political will to make the changes has been lacking (although maybe some SS reforms will be one of the few good things to come from the current debt impasse). However it strains logic to think that because it's been politically difficult to reform SS, the solution is to get rid of it entirely, as though THAT wouldn't be politically difficult.
    Never claimed it would be easy.
    I offer to end the problem, you offer to "fix the problem", the same claims made over and over and over again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Many people past or nearing retirement age have come to depend on SS, whether they support the program in principle or not. Hell, a lot of them don't even vote at all.
    And that dependency is good in your mind? If there were no more SS, my way, you get a lump sum for as much as we can afford to pay out what you've put in plus interest incurred...
    How is it bad to give the people their money and let them decide the right way to move forward?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The problem with SS is pretty simple: The demographic trends in this country are such that the dependency ratio is increasing, which means that outlays will soon (if they haven't already) exceed revenues. So to solve that problem and make SS solvent, we need to figure out ways to control the growth of outlays and/or generate more revenue. The steps I have suggested for fixing SS do not involve "punting the problem down the line a few years." They will make SS solvent into the foreseeable future.
    The foreseeable future is political speak for "Next election cycle." Because all you have are rosey projections for how it will "make things right". Costing todays workers more of their hard earned income to keep promises to the older generations. Promises made with not intent on keeping, for votes long cast.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Medicare/Medicaid are more difficult. The real problem here is the cost of health care. Eliminating the programs doesn't eliminate the cost of health care, it just shifts the costs to the private sector. In order to solve these problems, we need to get the cost of health care under control.
    We have areas where we can agree, how do you get costs under control! How about start with the most obvious, the lack of price pressure on medical use?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Like I said, I probably wouldn't include SS at all if I was creating a welfare state from scratch. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists, it has people who depend on it for income security in old age, and it requires some solutions that don't involve impoverishing millions of people.
    I don't say impoverish them, I say pay it out over a ten year period, block amoutns by age group then end it all.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #74
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Who are never wrong right?
    The CBO are as about a credible non-biased source as it gets on federal funding.



    Here's the thing about your "numbers". They're wrong.

    Prove that the Defense Department numbers are wrong that show the US spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #75
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Yeah...THIS is a good idea and bodes well for the country's future...

  6. #76
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,445
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    The rubber's met the road.

    Cut spending or die. That's where we are. Fortunately, we'll ultimately do the right thing, even if we have to start throwing politicians in the Chesapeake Bay.
    And what do you suppose the Libs would cut if anything?








    m i l i t a r y


    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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