• 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!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

:lol:

I already do.

You're lucky to be healthy then. With individual policies, the way they make them cheap enough to afford is by simply excluding the sick. So while you might be able to get one, it's not an option for everyone. So stop being so self-centered - and remember that even you will get old and sick and if they could, your private policy would drop you like a rock as soon as you did.

The older you get the more expensive insurance gets certainly - and the reason is the older you get the more of a chance you will have a physical ailment. I'm 43 and my private insurance is not that expensive. Then again, I forgo my VA insurance and depending on the coverage you want, it can be either moderate to VERY expensive. I pay about $900 a year on a PPO, which includes preventative eye and dental. My 84 year old mother - she pays $800 a quarter for health insurance (that's over and above the Medicare she gets from the Government), and she has Medicare Plan D - her supplemental health care insurance is expensive but then again she has a few different ailments, one of them serious. While I hear the horror stories about people getting dropped, it's not happened to me or any of my family or extended family - some of which have very serious ailments. While I'm sure they occur, it's my opinion that those occurrences are not the rule, but the exception.

So you simply dismiss the fact that millions have such troubles simply because you haven't? That's naive and unwise and self-centered. Oh, and your mom's on Medicare - that's government, in case you didn't notice.

My child had a pre-existing condition and couldn't get ANY private policy, at any cost. The law finally required it, but the cost was $900 A MONTH. But hey, since it's not happening to you, it's not happening.
 
Last edited:
The article states that as the Senate had no desire to pass a responsible spending bill. It does matter as far as the claims go. The House passed a bill to address the debt issue all without shutting down the government with the Tea Party backing.

Accusation dismissed.

So the Tea Party threatened to tear down the economy, and then changed its mind.

Doesn't change the fact that the crisis threatened to do severe damage, and it was due to the Tea Party. I'm just as glad as you are that they backed off.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Therefore I'm not wrong, as every expenditure plays its part to contribute to our debt.
Just as does every cut in revenue.

So now you're agreeing with my statement, why did you say it was wrong?

Catawba said:
SS has not created a dime of our debt, and crippling M/M does nothing to address the spiraling health care cost over the last 30 years of deregulation.

The objective of dismantling M/M has nothing to do with "addressing the spiraling care cost over the last 30 years..." The objective is to eliminate the runaway entitlements we have no hope of being able to afford anyway. That would be the point of it all. Eliminating unfunded/unfundable entitlements. What sense does it make to say "well that's not gonna accomplish this other thing over here" when that's not even the point?

As is plain to the majority of American public, requiring continued sacrifice by the seniors without any sacrifice in the tax cuts to the wealthy is class war.

...

Thankfully, the majority of the country does not agree with your proposal to throw the seniors to the dogs.

"Sacrifice by seniors?" They were working citizens (in a time of great prosperity) who set themselves up for the grandkids to pay their medical bills later in life so they wouldn't have to. That's Medicare. The least affordable of our entitlement programs. Don't play the violin to me about seniors. The problems they created will leave younger generations with no hope for such a cushy retirement.

It took 30 years of spending too much, mainly on the military, and taxing the rich too little to create our debt. Consequently, it will take 30 years of the opposite to significantly address our debt.

What an arbitrary thing to make up. How do you know it won't take 50? Or 200?

We can address our debt any time we want. But liberals (in both parties) want us to spend spend spend spend spend right now now now now now!!!! Kick the debt can 30 years down the road because that's what YOU arbitrarily decide it will take before we should pay any attention to it.

Raising the cap does fix it, and more equitably than the redistribution of wealth you and the GOP envision.

You want to raise the contribution cap and yet you call raising the age of eligibility "wealth redistribution." Most ironic thing I've read in days.
 
Last edited:
So now you're agreeing with my statement, why did you say it was wrong?

My point, as history shows us, the only way we can reduce our deficit is to both cut spending and increase taxes. Neither alone will be sufficient. You seemed to be suggesting before that we could balance the budget by spending cuts alone. If that was not your meaning, I am sorry I misunderstood you.

The objective of dismantling M/M has nothing to do with "addressing the spiraling care cost over the last 30 years..." The objective is to eliminate the runaway entitlements we have no hope of being able to afford anyway. That would be the point of it all. Eliminating unfunded/unfundable entitlements. What sense does it make to say "well that's not gonna accomplish this other thing over here" when that's not even the point?

Your plan does not address the affordability problem.

"Sacrifice by seniors?" They were working citizens (in a time of great prosperity) who set themselves up for the grandkids to pay their medical bills later in life so they wouldn't have to. That's Medicare. The least affordable of our entitlement programs. Don't play the violin to me about seniors. The problems they created will leave younger generations with no hope for such a cushy retirement.

We'll see how far you get with taking away seniors health care affordability. You do realize that seniors made up the only big demographic in the last presidential election don't you? How are planning to get the seniors to agree with your plan to cut their benefits?



What an arbitrary thing to make up. How do you know it won't take 50? Or 200?

Its not made up. Do a little research. We didn't have debt problem relative to GDP until the Reagan Administration in 1981. 2011 minus 1981 is 30 years by my calculations.

We can address our debt any time we want. But liberals (in both parties) want us to spend spend spend spend spend right now now now now now!!!! Kick the debt can 30 years down the road because that's what YOU arbitrarily decide it will take before we should pay any attention to it.

The only time in the last 30 years that the deficit has been addressed is when we both cut spending and increased revenues. Our debt is simply too big for spending cuts alone to be the answer.



You want to raise the contribution cap and yet you call raising the age of eligibility "wealth redistribution." Most ironic thing I've read in days.

The only reason SS does not have its trust funds is because they were used to fund Bush's military spending so that tax cuts could be provided to the rich. So raising the cap is not wealth redistribution, it is a correction for the wealth redistribution from SS to tax cuts for the rich.
 
The only reason SS does not have its trust funds is because they were used to fund Bush's military spending so that tax cuts could be provided to the rich. So raising the cap is not wealth redistribution, it is a correction for the wealth redistribution from SS to tax cuts for the rich.

You do know that they have been dipping into SS at least since the Vietnam era right?
 
You do know that they have been dipping into SS at least since the Vietnam era right?

I know according to public statements from G.W. Bush, we had 2.8 trillion dollar surplus in SS when he took office, which he promised to protect, and before he left, he said it was all gone.
 
I know according to public statements from G.W. Bush, we had 2.8 trillion dollar surplus in SS when he took office, which he promised to protect, and before he left, he said it was all gone.

Links please?
 
Links please?

Your president, in his first State of the Union address (February 27, 2001), promised to make sure that no Social Security money was used for any other program. He specifically said: "To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."

Now that is what he said: "for Social Security alone." But it seems like your president left something out.

And with that said and done, it seems like the same Bush went on to do something entirely different. No surprise there.

What Bush did in his first fours years was he looted the sacred Social Security trust fund. Down to the last nickel and dime.



In the Bush-Cheney first term the White House mob gleefully looted the entire $509 billion Social Security surplus. No surprise there again. And, at this very moment, Bush has his fingers in the same trust fund to the tune of $400 million or so a day.

But you can look at it this way. It is for a good cause.

Somebody has to pay for those tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

And the Social Security trust fund does come in handy in these cases. Furthermore, and to rub it in, the shameless Bush now admits it. This is what he has been saying lately in his Social Security scare speeches. "The money-payroll taxes going into Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust."

Whatever Happened to the Social Security Trust Fund? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
 
You do know that they have been dipping into SS at least since the Vietnam era right?

Gentlemen, the reason we don't have a trust fund is because we don't have a trust fund. It's simply an account at the Treasury Department. This is not a scandal either - it was never represented as anything else, except for the name, which was borrowed from the private sector but doesn't have the same definition.
 
What Bush did in his first fours years was he looted the sacred Social Security trust fund. Down to the last nickel and dime.

In the Bush-Cheney first term the White House mob gleefully looted the entire $509 billion Social Security surplus. No surprise there again. And, at this very moment, Bush has his fingers in the same trust fund to the tune of $400 million or so a day.

But you can look at it this way. It is for a good cause.

Somebody has to pay for those tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

And the Social Security trust fund does come in handy in these cases. Furthermore, and to rub it in, the shameless Bush now admits it. This is what he has been saying lately in his Social Security scare speeches. "The money-payroll taxes going into Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust."

Whatever Happened to the Social Security Trust Fund? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Bush is right. And to say that the SS fund has been "looted" or "spent" is highly inaccurate.

There's no separate SS fund, there's just the Treasury. Cash comes in, cash goes out. To spend cash now that comes in now is not to "raid" the surplus in one account. The SS money is not simply spent, it is "borrowed" from the other accounts by issuing internal bonds held by the government. In other words, the SS surplus is not spent, it is invested in U.S. bonds.

If the government were to save the cash it gets from SS payroll taxes, it would simply have to borrow that much more cash from the private sector to pay its bills. Instead, it borrows from itself.

This is not to say it's wise financially. One way or the other, retirees are going to want SS benefits in the future, and the government will need to come up with the cash then. But it's not the same thing as just spending the cash, never to be seen again.
 
The point is that the majority of Americans trust the government more than you or the insurance companies that keep tripling our rates every few years.
Your personal attack on Ockham is silly to say the least. When did he every say that Americans should trust him. You included that as some silly attack on his credibility, and it's a total FAIL. Tripling our rates every few years.....let's see the evidence.
 
I know according to public statements from G.W. Bush, we had 2.8 trillion dollar surplus in SS when he took office, which he promised to protect, and before he left, he said it was all gone.

Any politician that tells you that there is a surplus in any program is lying to you.
 
Your plan does not address the affordability problem.

It's not intended to. Please reread my previous post.

We'll see how far you get with taking away seniors health care affordability.

They don't HAVE affordability. If you drive a $20 million car for which you paid $5000 and taxpayers paid the rest, is that an affordable car?

It's Medicare as an entire program that is inherently unaffordable.

You do realize that seniors made up the only big demographic in the last presidential election don't you? How are planning to get the seniors to agree with your plan to cut their benefits?

They won't. But that changes nothing about the fact that Medicare needs to be dissolved.

Do a little research. We didn't have debt problem relative to GDP until the Reagan Administration in 1981. 2011 minus 1981 is 30 years by my calculations.

Therefore your simple calculation leads to the arbitrary assertion that it'll take 30 more years to address our debt. You call that research?

Our debt is simply too big for spending cuts alone to be the answer.

More and more people have been saying lately that there is no tax and cut answer to our debt anymore. They will manage our decline by destroying the dollar to wipe out the debt. This will be painful.
 
Bush is right. And to say that the SS fund has been "looted" or "spent" is highly inaccurate.

There's no separate SS fund, there's just the Treasury. Cash comes in, cash goes out. To spend cash now that comes in now is not to "raid" the surplus in one account. The SS money is not simply spent, it is "borrowed" from the other accounts by issuing internal bonds held by the government. In other words, the SS surplus is not spent, it is invested in U.S. bonds.

If the government were to save the cash it gets from SS payroll taxes, it would simply have to borrow that much more cash from the private sector to pay its bills. Instead, it borrows from itself.

This is not to say it's wise financially. One way or the other, retirees are going to want SS benefits in the future, and the government will need to come up with the cash then. But it's not the same thing as just spending the cash, never to be seen again.

During his campaign, he said we had 2.6 trillion dollar surplus, which he intended to protect. At the conclusion of this term, he said it was all gone, it had been spent. Borrowing from the SS surplus for general fund use is indeed allowed, and along with it comes the requirement to pay it back.
 
Any politician that tells you that there is a surplus in any program is lying to you.

I'm not going by the politicians, I'm going by the accounting records of the SS funds.
 
I'm not going by the politicians, I'm going by the accounting records of the SS funds.

Then they were lying to you. The entry might have been there but the money wasn't. That isn't trying to excuse reckless spending but it's just noting that the money wasn't there.
 
It's not intended to. Please reread my previous post.

I have no interest in a plan that does not address affordability.



They don't HAVE affordability. If you drive a $20 million car for which you paid $5000 and taxpayers paid the rest, is that an affordable car?

It's Medicare as an entire program that is inherently unaffordable.

Once again you are wrong, Medicare is run at less overhead than private insurance. It is the underlying problem of health care cost that is the problem. Your plan does nothing to address the problem.



They won't. But that changes nothing about the fact that Medicare needs to be dissolved.

Ain't happening as long as we live in a Democracy.


Therefore your simple calculation leads to the arbitrary assertion that it'll take 30 more years to address our debt. You call that research?

You are welcome to provide evidence to refute it if you wish.



More and more people have been saying lately that there is no tax and cut answer to our debt anymore. They will manage our decline by destroying the dollar to wipe out the debt. This will be painful.

You are wrong again, I am afraid. The majority of Americans have clearly expressed through 19 different polls this year that they support increasing taxes on the wealthy to help reduce the deficit. As far as your inflation issue, we are at historic lows.
 
Then they were lying to you. The entry might have been there but the money wasn't. That isn't trying to excuse reckless spending but it's just noting that the money wasn't there.

See the accounting report FD linked above.

And here is a little history for you about how the SS surpluses came about:

"Before the confetti from Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday is entirely swept away, we might pause to remember one of his signature achievements -- back when Democrats and Republicans actually spoke to each other.

It was in some ways a less entertaining time, but some things actually got done.

One of them, in 1982, was a bipartisan overhaul of the finances of Social Security. A commission headed by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., and Alan Greenspan, later the Oracle of the Federal Reserve, reduced some benefits and considerably increased Social Security taxes. Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill signed off on the deal.

As a result, for 30 years, Social Security piled up considerable surpluses -- surpluses that were supposed to be there for the system when the Baby Boomers started to retire and begin decades of looking for their old Beatles records. Since by law Social Security can invest its surplus only in Treasury notes, it now holds $2.6 trillion in U.S. bonds -- leaving it in position to make full payments until 2037.‡

Hardly any other entity in the world, public or private, can call itself a multitrillionaire. That's why John Burbank, executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute in Seattle, calls Social Security "the best-funded program in the federal government."

Still, in the midst of our current budget crisis, Social Security has just gotten thrown in with its bankrupt bureaucratic brothers. Last weekend on CNN, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairman of President Barack Obama's budget commission, explained that his critics were "jerks" and declared, "So I'm waiting for the politician to get up and say, there's only one way to do this, you dig into the big four: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense."

But as the television show that featured the original Oscar the Grouch used to explain, one of these things is not like the other.

One of these things has the moral and legal commitment of the U.S. government for $2.6 trillion.

There is a suggestion out there that because the $2.6 trillion is not piled up in gold bars somewhere, but is only a file of U.S. government IOUs, that it doesn't actually exist. Since the Social Security shortfall, like the Medicare shortfall, actually has to come out of the general fund, critics claim the situations are the same, and urge that Social Security's retirement ages should be jacked up until the books balance.

But if all those T-notes in the Social Security trust fund are just pieces of paper, we'd better keep that news from the other people holding them.

"If we pay off China for its purchase of Treasury bonds," notes Burbank, "we should pay off the American people for their purchase of Treasury bonds."

The Social Security surpluses were used to help pay off years of federal deficits. When the prospect of federal surpluses first appeared, Bill Clinton urged, in his 1998 State of the Union speech, that the money be used to "save Social Security first." Running for president in 2000, Al Gore wanted the Social Security surpluses put in a "lockbox," an idea that struck people as so hilarious it became a punchline.

Instead, hundreds of billions of dollars of Social Security taxes -- a flat tax that the government stops collecting above certain incomes -- were used to help balance three major George W. Bush tax cuts. As Harry J. Holzer, public policy professor at Georgetown University, put it seven years ago, "Thus the Social Security surplus -- financed by payroll tax increases on the lower and middle classes -- has been used to fund income tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit high-income people."

Time to live up to Reagan's Social Security deal | OregonLive.com
 
I'm not attempting to make a partisan point. I was clear to note that if "any" politician tells you that there is a fund, they are lying to you.
 
I'm not attempting to make a partisan point. I was clear to note that if "any" politician tells you that there is a fund, they are lying to you.


Again, as indicated previously, my source is not a politician.
 
Again, as indicated previously, my source is not a politician.

If ANYONE tells you that there is a fund, they are lying to you.
 
Back
Top Bottom