• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

SS, Medicare and Medicaide have unfunded liabilities over $100,000,000,000,000.00. Hate to break it to you sport, but there isn't enough MONEY in the world to fund what the American people "want" because some politicians promised them.

What a partisan bull**** comment that has zero reality to economics and facts. How long in the future are you counting.. 100 years? Average lifespan or just saying everyone is gonna live to they are 100 years old? Why dont you throw out a larger number to make your point stick to your partisan base.. how about 900,000,000,000,000?
 
Yes, it has been...in the past. However, projections show it doing quite the opposite in the future and this year is an example of that. However, not surprising, as you went on and on about the "surplus" of social security (grossly exaggerating it by 10 trillion dollars) you somehow forgot to mention that the most recent year actually is a deficit.

The projection (and it's only one of two projections) depend on a 10 year growth rate so low that the US has not grown so slowly at any time during our lifetimes. And this deficit can be eliminated by getting rid of the FICA tax cap.



Where did I say it didn't?

It however destroys the notion that its a TWELVE Trillion dollar surplus, not to mention destroys the implications you attempt to make that suggest that somehow that surplus is something to be counted on in the future rather than a trend that is set to become extinct.

I posted a link that shows I was wrong about the $12T surplus. It's $22T

Again, show me where? My links showed that this year its projected to run a deficit, not a surplus. It also showed us set to almost double the amount of people getting pay outs. Birth rates since the 1980's have been significantly lower than those of the 50's-60's which will be hitting retirement, creating a situation where there are less people paying in and more people taking out. Indeed, we have about half as many kids born per 1,000 people now as we did in 1960. Indeed, 2010 was the lowest birth rate in a century. Meanwhile our life expentency is increasing and our death rate has decreased over the past decade.

So we have more people going onto social security, they're living longer, they're dying less frequently, and we're had less babies born to have people paying into the system.

You're banking off a trend that's occured over the past 20 to 30 years while ignoring the numerous changes in the variables that would play into it.

You're banking on a long term trend that has not occurred in our lifetime. You are assuming that the next ten years will be like the Great Dpression.

Incorrect, it showed a deficit THIS YEAR. Furthermore, the projections are using a long-term growth rate that is on par with what's been occuring over the past few decades which is that the numbers remain at a steady low number as compared to the years past.

Not, the projection depends on growth below what we've experienced during our lifetimes

There Is No Social Security Crisis

But for some reason, the trustees are of the opinion that in the upcoming decades, the economy is going to grow at a far slower rate than it has. Although gross domestic product growth averaged 3.1 percent from 1966 to 2006, all three of the trustees’ projections assume GDP growth lower than that. Even the optimistic “low cost” projection assumes that GDP will average 3.1 percent only until 2017, after which it predicts that growth will slow, averaging 2.9 percent for the rest of the 75-year window they’re projecting. The “intermediate” projection assumes that economic growth will average 2.1 percent after 2017.
 
Well: look ot them for what? The believe that if we just *raise* our taxes then we'd be better off?

It's not how muc hwe tax - it's what we do with it, what we value as a society, what our goals are - and so many other things that matter.

Of course, and nobody suggested otherwise. Nobody has ever argued "just raise taxes and America will be better off!"
 
Since you have done such a bad job of predicting the past, I can't believe your predictions of the future

It's not my predictions there bub.

The Real Debt

Here is what he said regarding the actual US debt:

"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent."

Interested readers will notice that the new prescription drug benefit is projected to be more fiscally crushing than all of Social Security.

Mr. Fisher points out that this $99.2 trillion will be a bit of a burden to pay off:
Our $100 Trillion National Debt by Bill Walker

Feel free to do a little research yourself.
 
The projection (and it's only one of two projections) depend on a 10 year growth rate so low that the US has not grown so slowly at any time during our lifetimes. And this deficit can be eliminated by getting rid of the FICA tax cap.



Where did I say it didn't?



I posted a link that shows I was wrong about the $12T surplus. It's $22T



You're banking on a long term trend that has not occurred in our lifetime. You are assuming that the next ten years will be like the Great Dpression.



Not, the projection depends on growth below what we've experienced during our lifetimes

There Is No Social Security Crisis

You article is from February 24, 2009. It's 2011, things change, welcome to reality.
 
Again, you are looking at only one side of the picture (ie spending) without looking at the total picture (ie revenues), which is sophistic. Even your own link implies that a SS deficit is unusual.

Actually, I'm not. I'm looking at both sides. You can not actually get to talking about a deficit if you don't look at revenue. Without revenue, all you have is spending. To GET to the point of talking about a deficit you must take spending into account because it is the money left over between the amount of revenue brought in and the amount you spend that creates said deficit.

I am looking at the total picture, and that total picture includes SS spending in total spending and SS revenue in total revenue.

Ignoring the fact that military spending benefits corporations, while entitlements benefit the majority of americans will not strengthen your arguments. It is sophistry

Irrelevant to the fact that running 1.4 Trillion Dollar deficits and continuing to balloon the debt benefits NO ONE in this country...not corporations, not the majority of americans, not anyone. You desperately wish to turn this into a class warfare argument with me, you're not going to. I've already stated, numerous times here and on this forum, that the military spending needs to be cut. Its one of the two big elephants in the room. Its a huge issue. And yet it is still less than half the size entitlement spending is.

I could be your mirror image as a hyper partisan hack and counter your ridiculous "OMG THE CORPORATIONZ!!!!11!1eleventyone!" scream by pointing out that there is clear, indisputable, unquestionable responsability placed on the Federal Government to pay for a military. But I'm not doing that, because that's not what we're discussing. I'm not discussing what should and shouldn't get money. I'm discussing the fact that we can't afford to keep spending what we are spending regardless of the reasons for it.

Would it be nice and wonderful and feel good and rainbows and unicorns if we could give every american free health care and a free house and $50,000 salaries for doing nothing? Absolutely. That doesn't mean we should or can do it though.

And yet, the rightwing won't touch defense spending. It was the rightwing who were thrilled to throw money at the HSA, the TSA, and the MIC.

Blah blah blah hyper partisan bull**** blah blah blah.

Nothing to do with my argument.

If you want to know what is causing the deficits, here ya go

Wow, a blog site for "blue" arkansas. I'm sure that's a reputable source. Again, you mistake "posting pictures" for "debating". Give me the link to where those numbers are generated. Its absolutely right though, however its numbers are so large on the side that it doesn't show it. Your graph backs up what I said...that if you remove everything but entitlements we still run a deficit, albiet a small one.

Here's the dishonesty here however. It shows all over those things equalling about 1.5 trillion dollars. Yep, that's correct. Here's what it doesn't show. That 2.1 trillion dollars goes to entitlements. Again, you cherry pick like the hyper partisan you are. The wars in Iraq, the Bush-Era Tax Cuts (though now the Bush AND Obama Era Tax Cuts) TARP, they do factor into the deficit. So does Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, Unemployment, and all the other things we spend money on. Those things don't magically come out of some other pot of money that is other than the revenue the country generates.
 
What a partisan bull**** comment that has zero reality to economics and facts. How long in the future are you counting.. 100 years? Average lifespan or just saying everyone is gonna live to they are 100 years old? Why dont you throw out a larger number to make your point stick to your partisan base.. how about 900,000,000,000,000?

Unfunded liability is such a meaningless phrase. I have to pay rent for the forseeable future, that means my unfunded liability for rent is (rent) * (arbitrary number of months)!
 
The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security . That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.
This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.
Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.
U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com
 
Unlike you, Z has a ton of credibility on this forum.

And you're in the same category as Sangha, but you have been here longer...
 
Actually, I'm not. I'm looking at both sides. You can not actually get to talking about a deficit if you don't look at revenue. Without revenue, all you have is spending. To GET to the point of talking about a deficit you must take spending into account because it is the money left over between the amount of revenue brought in and the amount you spend that creates said deficit.

I am looking at the total picture, and that total picture includes SS spending in total spending and SS revenue in total revenue.

Actually, you are only looking at one side. You refuse to look at SS on its' own and refuse to acknowledge all the money that SS has contributed towards reducing the deficits and the national debt. You insist on one viewpoint, to the exclusion of others.


Irrelevant to the fact that running 1.4 Trillion Dollar deficits and continuing to balloon the debt benefits NO ONE in this country...not corporations, not the majority of americans, not anyone. You desperately wish to turn this into a class warfare argument with me, you're not going to. I've already stated, numerous times here and on this forum, that the military spending needs to be cut. Its one of the two big elephants in the room. Its a huge issue. And yet it is still less than half the size entitlement spending is.

But you refuse to admit that most of that entitlement spending (ie SS) is fully funded with dedicated revenues.

I could be your mirror image as a hyper partisan hack and counter your ridiculous "OMG THE CORPORATIONZ!!!!11!1eleventyone!" scream by pointing out that there is clear, indisputable, unquestionable responsability placed on the Federal Government to pay for a military. But I'm not doing that, because that's not what we're discussing. I'm not discussing what should and shouldn't get money. I'm discussing the fact that we can't afford to keep spending what we are spending regardless of the reasons for it.

IMO, we can't afford to kill the economy by stopping spending during an economic downturn with so many out of work. The way out is to grow the economy and that takes spending money

Would it be nice and wonderful and feel good and rainbows and unicorns if we could give every american free health care and a free house and $50,000 salaries for doing nothing? Absolutely. That doesn't mean we should or can do it though.

If we had a universal, single payer health care system, we could save about 33% on our health care expenditures and get better outcomes.

But I do appreciate your emotional rant about rainbows and unicorns. It really makes your arguments sound more rational


Blah blah blah hyper partisan bull**** blah blah blah.

It has to do with the facts; facts you cant seem to respond to or refute


Wow, a blog site for "blue" arkansas. I'm sure that's a reputable source. Again, you mistake "posting pictures" for "debating". Give me the link to where those numbers are generated. Its absolutely right though, however its numbers are so large on the side that it doesn't show it. Your graph backs up what I said...that if you remove everything but entitlements we still run a deficit, albiet a small one.

So you can't refute any of the facts, so you attack the messenger. The graph identifies the source of the #'s it uses

Here's the dishonesty here however. It shows all over those things equalling about 1.5 trillion dollars. Yep, that's correct. Here's what it doesn't show. That 2.1 trillion dollars goes to entitlements. Again, you cherry pick like the hyper partisan you are. The wars in Iraq, the Bush-Era Tax Cuts (though now the Bush AND Obama Era Tax Cuts) TARP, they do factor into the deficit. So does Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, Unemployment, and all the other things we spend money on. Those things don't magically come out of some other pot of money that is other than the revenue the country generates.

SS does not factor into deficits except to reduce them, with the exception of one year and that is due to the economic downturn. Less people working means less people paying into SS. The way to solve this is to grow the economy, and that requires spending money, not cutting spending.
 
Thanks to bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afhanistan, and spending programs passed under bush* by republicans
deficit.jpg

And TARP, which Obama continued, and the Wars, that Obama continued and expanded upon, and the tax cuts that Obama continued, and the spending programs that Obama's continued all of which is dwarfed by various entitlements that democrats and republicans have both continued.

That's nothing.

Its still a deficit, and that's with unreasically cutting the budget of every single federal agency to $0. Which is different than your original claim that all of the deficit is essentially Bush's fault.

No, almost every year it reduces the budget by billions. And your surplus # does not include the interest the trust fund earns. More sophistrys

Didn't you just say, like literally just up the post a few lines, that "billions" was "nothing"?

Really, my surplus's actually have referenced links and backup. Yours has....well, your credibility and nothing else. The same one that claimed that $50 billion was "nothing" but then clapped SS on the back for reducing the budget by "billions". The same one that claimed a 2.4T deficit was really 12T with no back up. The same one that suggested it was Defense that was causing all the deficit when cutting everything but entitlements would still run a deficit.

I'm sorry, your words don't matter much.

And I was wrong. It's not a $12T surplus

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000366/-$22-trillion-Social-Security-surplus-revealed-on-C-SPAN

Lets see, what's more reliable. The DAILY KOS, a liberal blog dedicated to pushing a liberal agenda and known to slant things or I don't know...the Social Security Administration. The SSA, that shows a $2.6 Trillion surplus not 22 Trillion.

Sorry again, but I'll take the SSA's own numbers over DailyKOS's review of a random bloomberg economists numbers that isn't shown with any detail or insight into how he came to said numbers.
 
Actually, I had many arguments. Its rather obvious based on your posts why you chose to ignore them.

I had the argument that even if we believed your ridiculous comment, and even if we made dozens of other departments spend all their money on defense, that it STILL doesn't equal to what the cost of entitlements sans SS equal, let alone when you add social security into it. I had the argument that even if we did have a portion of every non-entitlement budget going towards defense spending it'd STILL be less than entitlements.

And so your counter is to...bitch about the wealthy? What about my posts had ANYTHING to do with the wealthy. I know you wish to back peddle and attempt to play the "wealthy" line as if its a get out of free card or a Draw 4 in Uno. Its not. Especialy in a situation where I've not even talked about the wealthy. I'm talking about entitlements vs defense spending, not upper vs lower class, not wealthy vs poor.

Entitlement spending, and defense spending, both need to be addressed and people need to get out of denail over it. Entitlement spending needs to be cut, yes cut from the "wealthy" and from the "poor" and from the "middle class" as well. It simply needs to be cut.

I agree. It is abundantly clear that entitlement spending needs to be cut and military spending needs to be cut. Would you also agree that taxes need to be raised, or do you think we can solve this problem through cuts alone?
 
So? He is still not right on everything... he totally ignores the Bush tax cuts and the two unfunded wars Bush started. Both of these have had a massive impact on the deficit and the debt load we have today. All he is blaming is the usual suspects of the US right while ignoring the "favourites" of the US right.

How have I ignored them?

I stated specifically here and in other threads talking about this that Defense Spending definitely has to be addressed and reduced and acknowledged completely that the War in Iraq and Afghanistan helped contribute to the deficit...however, they along with ALL DOD spending account for less than half of what entitlement spending costs. They attribute to the deficit, but so does SS, medicare, etc.

The Bush and Obama Tax Cuts do affect it as well, however again are a small drop in a much larger pool. We'd need to raise tax revenue by 70% to break even with the amount we're spending currently. The Bush Tax cuts would not do that.

Seriously, I'm not ignoring the "right wings favorites". Over 1/2 of our spending is entitlements. Add defense to that and its 3/4ths of our spending. We're insane to think that the solution to our financial problems is going to come anywhere other than those two places right now, and that includes revenue raising. Sure, taxes may need to be on the table...I've spoken support for various methods of tax increases in a number of threads...but its absolutely secondary to reducing military spending and reforming entitlements. As I've said elsewhere, find a way to cut both to 1/3rd of their current levels and we'd get our spending to a point where other methods...such as tax increases, waste removal, and cutting of luxury programs like foreign aid...would actually have a substantial effect.

But if we cut away EVERYTHING but entitlement spending right now we'd still be running a deficit. If we cut every bit of defense spending we'd still need 35% more revenue brought in. Look at the Revenue generated prior to the Bush Tax Cuts...it was not 35% higher than what we have now I can almost garauntee.
 
And TARP, which Obama continued

The spending on TARP under Obama was authorized while bush* was president.

, and the Wars, that Obama continued and expanded upon, and the tax cuts that Obama continued, and the spending programs that Obama's continued all of which is dwarfed by various entitlements that democrats and republicans have both continued.

Obama did not expand upon the Iraq War, which was supposed to last "weeks, not months or years". And he surged in Afghanistan because bush* fumbled the ball there. He extended the tax cuts at the insistence of republicans and spending on HSA, TSA, Medicare D, etc are the responsibility of bush* and republicans.



Its still a deficit, and that's with unreasically cutting the budget of every single federal agency to $0. Which is different than your original claim that all of the deficit is essentially Bush's fault.

It's a deficit that our economy can easily deal with and it doesn't require cutting every fed agency to 0.

And I never said the entire deficit is bush*'s fault. That is fiction


Didn't you just say, like literally just up the post a few lines, that "billions" was "nothing"?

No, I said a specific amount (ie $48 billion). Nice try


Really, my surplus's actually have referenced links and backup. Yours has....well, your credibility and nothing else. The same one that claimed that $50 billion was "nothing" but then clapped SS on the back for reducing the budget by "billions". The same one that claimed a 2.4T deficit was really 12T with no back up. The same one that suggested it was Defense that was causing all the deficit when cutting everything but entitlements would still run a deficit.

More fictions. I have posted links to back up what I said.

I'm sorry, your words don't matter much.

Well, if someone on the internet says so, it must be true!!


Lets see, what's more reliable. The DAILY KOS, a liberal blog dedicated to pushing a liberal agenda and known to slant things or I don't know...the Social Security Administration. The SSA, that shows a $2.6 Trillion surplus not 22 Trillion.

Sorry again, but I'll take the SSA's own numbers over DailyKOS's review of a random bloomberg economists numbers that isn't shown with any detail or insight into how he came to said numbers.

If you weren't so busy trying to win an internet debate, you would have read the article and realized the # came from a reputable, non-leftwing source.

Try reading it this time
 
What about the Kerry's? They were accused of doing that...

I was being a smartass...stop messing up a perfectly snideful joke! ;)

I have read similar things about the Heinz's...I think Kerry just married into it so dont know if he is as guilty as the Kennedy's. Wealthy people of all political bent have a tendency to protect their wealth for their own posterity, regardless of the public image they like to portray.
 
How have I ignored them?

I stated specifically here and in other threads talking about this that Defense Spending definitely has to be addressed and reduced and acknowledged completely that the War in Iraq and Afghanistan helped contribute to the deficit...however, they along with ALL DOD spending account for less than half of what entitlement spending costs. They attribute to the deficit, but so does SS, medicare, etc.

The Bush and Obama Tax Cuts do affect it as well, however again are a small drop in a much larger pool. We'd need to raise tax revenue by 70% to break even with the amount we're spending currently. The Bush Tax cuts would not do that.

He doesn't ignore them. He dismisses them. And no one has suggested raising taxes to 70%. That's a straw man


Seriously, I'm not ignoring the "right wings favorites". Over 1/2 of our spending is entitlements. Add defense to that and its 3/4ths of our spending. We're insane to think that the solution to our financial problems is going to come anywhere other than those two places right now, and that includes revenue raising. Sure, taxes may need to be on the table...I've spoken support for various methods of tax increases in a number of threads...but its absolutely secondary to reducing military spending and reforming entitlements. As I've said elsewhere, find a way to cut both to 1/3rd of their current levels and we'd get our spending to a point where other methods...such as tax increases, waste removal, and cutting of luxury programs like foreign aid...would actually have a substantial effect.

Maybe??

And the SS portion of entitlements, which make up the largest share, are fully funded by any reasonable projection.

But if we cut away EVERYTHING but entitlement spending right now we'd still be running a deficit. If we cut every bit of defense spending we'd still need 35% more revenue brought in. Look at the Revenue generated prior to the Bush Tax Cuts...it was not 35% higher than what we have now I can almost garauntee.

There is no need to balance the budget. We can run deficits far into the future. The problem is the size of the deficits. Your argument is based on a fallacy.
 
The projection (and it's only one of two projections) depend on a 10 year growth rate so low that the US has not grown so slowly at any time during our lifetimes. And this deficit can be eliminated by getting rid of the FICA tax cap.

No, it relies on the fact that the trend of the past 30 years continues, that being of a relatively low birth rate that is mostly steady but trending lower.

Where did I say it didn't?

No where directly, which is why I said you forgot to mention rather than said you mentioned the opposite. You simply ignored that bit of information because it didn't help what you were trying to imply, which was that SS would always not just pay for itself but run a surplus.

I posted a link that shows I was wrong about the $12T surplus. It's $22T

Yes, you posted a DailyKOS analysis of a random econimist with no information at all as to how he got his numbers. I meanwhile actually posted a truly non-partisan source, the actual agency that overseas said surplus.

You're banking on a long term trend that has not occurred in our lifetime. You are assuming that the next ten years will be like the Great Dpression.

No, I'm assuming the next 10 years will follow what's been happening for the past 10 to 30 years. Which has been low birth rates, lowering death rates, and increasing life expectancy. You're banking on things happening contrary to long term trends because it suits your position.

Not, the projection depends on growth below what we've experienced during our lifetimes

There Is No Social Security Crisis

Really? I've made it a point not to go grab onto NRO or Heritage information, yet you're going to throw out a magazine focused on writing things specifically from a liberal perspective?

Shocker, a staunch liberal writing for an admittedly biased magazine leaning decidingly liberal thinks social security is fine.

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!
 
Which entitlements are you talking about? I am talking about the ones we all pay into and all benefit from... like SS.

Again, we pay low tax rates... Nearly half of American households paid no federal income taxes but still paid there SS taxes, and a lot of right wing people even support a tax increase with the fair tax. It's true that giving people all these tax credits has spoiled people and they will be pissed to give them up, and all the politicians are scared to be the one to ask them to do it. But another issue is, a lot of the biggest tax credits like EIC is given to low income families, and that is afforded by the higher tax taxes the wealthier pay. If our nation becomes more prosperous and successful, and as the income gap decreases there will be more high income tax payers anyway. I am going to be paying higher taxes in the future, because I finished college and will only be making more and more money each year. I personally don't have a problem with that...

I think if it was just the paid for programs we wouldnt have as much concern. SS still has a lot of folks that draw out of it money they have never paid in but thats probably one of the more secure forms of 'entitlement' and as such...its not so much an entitlement as it is a ridiculously low yield investment account. Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, those are more the entitlement programs that keep everyone jumping. Ive read where states Medicaid costs are continuing to climb and are expected to be 30-40 % of their overall expenditures. Not healthy.
 
You're right, it wasn't you who said corporations, so I edited the post, but not soon enough for you to quote it. My bad

However, the discussion was about corporations, until you tried to change it to families.

And no, the Kennedys' were not a corporation. They owned corps, but they weren't a corp. Saying so is sophistic.

And corps are neither left nor right. They are economic entities designed to make a profit

Geeesh...I wasnt changing it to families...i was being a smartass. I LIKE pointing out to all the ideologues that bleat on about evil corporations that their liberal Gods are just as guilty of the **** they accuse evil capitalists of doing.
 
I agree. It is abundantly clear that entitlement spending needs to be cut and military spending needs to be cut. Would you also agree that taxes need to be raised, or do you think we can solve this problem through cuts alone?

I think entitlements need to be reformed, badly. I think we need to significantly reduce military spending as well. I think those two things, above all else, need to be first addressed and planned for. Trying to deal with the other 25% while ignoring the larger 75% is ridiculous.

After an honest effort is being made for those, I'd be open for most other things. Possibly increasing taxes? Sure. I would get behind that if it at least raises it a bit on everyone, even if its raised more on the rich than others, but I would not support that burden being placed only on a single group of people. Ultimately, if I had my druthers, I would want to see a 1 or 2% sales tax placed on everything that isn't food or medication, in which that money would go DIRECTLY to an additional debt payment. This would allow us to actually begin to pay down the principle of our debt rather than continuing to just pay the interest, which would intern lower the interest payments in the long term and reduce spending.

Along with that I'd want us looking into a number of other things. Removal of waste and redundancy in the government. Reform of the tax code to simplify it, thus reducing the cost of the entire tax structure. The removal or reduction of many subsidies, be it to oil, corn, art, or science. Foreign aid expenditures, etc. And I could go on.

But I would not support either of those things...the reduction of discretionary type spending or raising taxes...until and honest effort has begun under both of those two larger sections of spending. Increasing taxes while letting the rest stay bloated is nothing but a recipe for continuing to be bloated and I don't think it would be healthy or very viable to raise the near 70% additional revenue we'd need to sustain this bloated government we have. If we raise taxes first all we're doing is giving the crack addicts on both sides the cash they need to get more of what they crave. Then somehow, stupidly, are expecting them to give up their crack. That doens't work. Additionally, I'm not in favor of pointless rinky dinky cuts like foreign aide that are nothing but a drop in a bucket and are simply a murmers show to hide the bigger issues.

I'm for a whole host of ways to deal with our financial crisis. But I'm not for kicking the can down the road by looking at minor things while ignoring the big glaring issues that are there.
 
No, it relies on the fact that the trend of the past 30 years continues, that being of a relatively low birth rate that is mostly steady but trending lower.

Not true, and I posted a link and a quote which proves you wrong. Again, you show that you have failed to read what I posted.

No where directly, which is why I said you forgot to mention rather than said you mentioned the opposite. You simply ignored that bit of information because it didn't help what you were trying to imply, which was that SS would always not just pay for itself but run a surplus.

If economic growth follows the pattern of last few decades, it will continue to run a surplus. And the elimination of the FICA cap would eliminate nearly any possibility of a deficit in SS. I posted links to this effect, which you seem to have ignored.

Yes, you posted a DailyKOS analysis of a random econimist with no information at all as to how he got his numbers. I meanwhile actually posted a truly non-partisan source, the actual agency that overseas said surplus.

You obviously didn't read the article or you would know that it wasn't a DailyKOS analysis.

No, I'm assuming the next 10 years will follow what's been happening for the past 10 to 30 years. Which has been low birth rates, lowering death rates, and increasing life expectancy. You're banking on things happening contrary to long term trends because it suits your position.

You're ignoring the economic growth projections that are used in those projections. I didn't question the population projections. You are ignoring the low projected growth rate issue I raised because you can't counter it. Your talk about population projections is just a distraction about an issue I haven't disputed.



Really? I've made it a point not to go grab onto NRO or Heritage information, yet you're going to throw out a magazine focused on writing things specifically from a liberal perspective?

Again you can't refute the facts, so you attack the source. More sohpistry
 
I think if it was just the paid for programs we wouldnt have as much concern. SS still has a lot of folks that draw out of it money they have never paid in but thats probably one of the more secure forms of 'entitlement' and as such...its not so much an entitlement as it is a ridiculously low yield investment account. Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, those are more the entitlement programs that keep everyone jumping. Ive read where states Medicaid costs are continuing to climb and are expected to be 30-40 % of their overall expenditures. Not healthy.

Medicare and Mdicaid, as presently constituted do present a problem. The solution is a universal, single payer health care system. That could save us as much as 33% on our health care costs and we'd get better outcomes
 
No, I'm assuming the next 10 years will follow what's been happening for the past 10 to 30 years. Which has been low birth rates, lowering death rates, and increasing life expectancy. You're banking on things happening contrary to long term trends because it suits your position.

You also seem to be banking on this economic malaise continuing indefinitely, along with the attendant low revenue and high spending on social services.

Socia Security is a small problem relative to military spending, Medicare/aid, and too low tax rates.
 
Medicare and Mdicaid, as presently constituted do present a problem. The solution is a universal, single payer health care system. That could save us as much as 33% on our health care costs and we'd get better outcomes

Its comical how quickly people can look at what we KNOW as a system that is bloated and full of abuse and think the salvation to the world is a bigger system more ripe for abuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom