Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

Grant · May 17, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Yes Reform it by killing SS, Medicaide and Medicare. "Reform" is just code for "Punt to the next crisis." Entitlements are UNSUSTAINABLE.

Yes, entitlements are unsustainable, and that's true everywhere. But the trick is to get the public off these expected entitlements once they become accustomed to them. That's the difficult part, and one most politicians try to avoid. In the end though, the citizenry are just as much to blame as the politicians.

Kandahar · May 17, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Yes Reform it by killing SS, Medicaide and Medicare. "Reform" is just code for "Punt to the next crisis." Entitlements are UNSUSTAINABLE.

Umm, "killing SS"? So someone who is 64 years old and has been counting on that money their entire lives should just be SOL? :roll:

There are ways to draw down spending on entitlement programs without sending the economy into the toilet and without impoverishing the elderly. For example, SS could be made sustainable into the foreseeable future with a few modest changes, which I've outlined here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ty-deficits-now-permanent.html#post1059484513

Medicare and Medicaid are a bit more difficult to reform, but they are not intractable problems either. None of these entitlement programs, however, will be solved (or even mitigated) by the grossly counterproductive discretionary spending cuts Congress is now considering.

The Baron · May 17, 2011

"Why not? The private sector does it constantly so why cant the US government?" - Pete EU

It's probably only a matter of time before Obama goes after private pension funds to help pay for all his spending. And he'll do it in the name of "fairness".

Renae · May 17, 2011

Kandahar said:
Umm, "killing SS"? So someone who is 64 years old and has been counting on that money their entire lives should just be SOL? :roll:

You know, I've said a dozen times it should be discontinued over a 10 year period. Pay bulk load as much as we can, to each age block starting with the oldest to the youngest.

AND THEN END IT.

Personally my pity for them is very very very low. They voted for people that continued to sell them a song, while spending their money, and promising them SS would "still be there". Instead of demanding it be put right when they were oyunger, they now demand to get paid even though it's GONE, been GONE and went ON THEIR WATCH.

Kandahar said:
There are ways to draw down spending on entitlement programs without sending the economy into the toilet and without impoverishing the elderly. For example, SS could be made sustainable into the foreseeable future with a few minor changes, which I've outlined here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ty-deficits-now-permanent.html#post1059484513

Medicare and Medicaid are a bit more difficult to reform, but they are not intractable problems either. None of these entitlement programs, however, will be solved (or even mitigated) by the grossly counterproductive spending cuts Congress is now considering.

You have this misconception the Government is supposed to be providing these benefits, it isn't, never was set up that way. FDR and later generations of politicians BRIBED people for votes, and now the bill is coming due.

Kandahar · May 17, 2011

MrVicchio said:
You know, I've said a dozen times it should be discontinued over a 10 year period. Pay bulk load as much as we can, to each age block starting with the oldest to the youngest.

AND THEN END IT.

So then don't tell me that "reform is just an excuse to punt it until the next crisis" unless you actually plan to end it immediately. You have your vision of long-term reform, I have mine. The only difference is that mine actually makes economic sense.

MrVicchio said:
Personally my pity for them is very very very low. They voted for people that continued to sell them a song, while spending their money, and promising them SS would "still be there". Instead of demanding it be put right when they were oyunger, they now demand to get paid even though it's GONE, been GONE and went ON THEIR WATCH.

The people who are counting on SS are not necessarily the same people who voted for it, and in any case, punishing them because you don't like their politics is incredibly petty, childish, and authoritarian.

MrVicchio said:
You have this misconception the Government is supposed to be providing these benefits, it isn't, never was set up that way. FDR and later generations of politicians BRIBED people for votes, and now the bill is coming due.

You seem to have this misconception that I care what people who lived in a third-world agrarian society in 1789 think that government is "supposed to be providing." You seem to have this misconception that I subscribe to your religion of Founding Fatherism. I do not.

Renae · May 17, 2011

Kandahar said:
So then don't tell me that "reform is just an excuse to punt it until the next crisis" unless you actually plan to end it immediately. You have your vision of long-term reform, I have mine. The only difference is that mine actually makes economic sense.

How does maintaining that which is unsustainable equal economic sense and ending that which is unsustainable equal not economical? :blink:

Kandahar said:
The people who are counting on SS are not necessarily the same people who voted for it, and in any case, punishing them because you don't like their politics is incredibly petty, childish, and authoritarian.

Unless you're over what? 80? SS's been around, and thus it's on your watch.

Funny how you claim petty, and childish yet your options are keep paying for programs we can't afford or "people will starve!!!" and taking, by force, money from people, not saving it, not investing it, not protecting it is somehow.. benevolent.

Kandahar said:
You seem to have this misconception that I care what people who lived in a third-world agrarian society in 1789 think that government is "supposed to be providing." You seem to have this misconception that I subscribe to your religion of Founding Fatherism. I do not.

It's obvious you do not. You subscribe to "People are pathetic, worthless, stupid and NEED Government to save them from their own idiocy."

I still believe in PEOPLE. You believe in Government.

Kandahar · May 17, 2011

MrVicchio said:
How does maintaining that which is unsustainable equal economic sense and ending that which is unsustainable equal not economical? :blink:

It isn't unsustainable if the changes I suggested are made. It will reduce the growth of social security costs, and reduce the dependency ratio by increasing the working-age population. Those steps should be sufficient to make social security solvent into the foreseeable future.

MrVicchio said:
Unless you're over what? 80? SS's been around, and thus it's on your watch.

You are advocating collective punishment against an age cohort because SOME of them voted in a way you do not like. Even if I granted you that it was acceptable to punish people because you didn't like their politics, there are plenty of people in that age cohort who never voted for any such thing.

MrVicchio said:
Funny how you claim petty, and childish yet your options are keep paying for programs we can't afford or "people will starve!!!" and taking, by force, money from people, not saving it, not investing it, not protecting it is somehow.. benevolent.

I don't think social security is necessarily benevolent. If I was designing a welfare state from scratch, I probably wouldn't include social security at all. But that doesn't change the fact that we have social security now, and we need to reform it without impoverishing those who depend on it. There is a way to fix the program that makes economic sense, and there is a way to "fix" the program that conforms to your ideological rigidity. Unfortunately for you, they are not the same.

MrVicchio said:
It's obvious you do not. You subscribe to "People are pathetic, worthless, stupid and NEED Government to save them from their own idiocy."

Mm-hmm.

MrVicchio said:
I still believe in PEOPLE. You believe in Government.

OK. :roll:

Renae · May 18, 2011

Kandahar said:
It isn't unsustainable if the changes I suggested are made. It will reduce the growth of social security costs, and reduce the dependency ratio by increasing the working-age population. Those steps should be sufficient to make social security solvent into the foreseeable future.

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.

Kandahar said:
You are advocating collective punishment against an age cohort because SOME of them voted in a way you do not like. Even if I granted you that it was acceptable to punish people because you didn't like their politics, there are plenty of people in that age cohort who never voted for any such thing.

Wait... the people against SS or were not for it... would be punished by ending it? You have an odd definition of "punishment".

Kandahar said:
I don't think social security is necessarily benevolent. If I was designing a welfare state from scratch, I probably wouldn't include social security at all. But that doesn't change the fact that we have social security now, and we need to reform it without impoverishing those who depend on it. There is a way to fix the program that makes economic sense, and there is a way to "fix" the program that conforms to your ideological rigidity. Unfortunately for you, they are not the same.

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.

Kandahar said:
Mm-hmm.

Tell me, what NEED is there for Social Security?

Kandahar said:
OK. :roll:

I believe people will, make the right choices when they are left to control their own destinies.

Catawba · May 18, 2011

MrVicchio said:
If this doesn't tell you we've over reached our bounds, nothing will. Raiding pensions to pay for spending we cannot afford? CUT THE SPENDING.

Agreed, we can no longer afford the unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy that added $3 trillion to our debt, or the military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world combined, or the 3 optional wars in the Middle East. Where do I sign up to cut that wasteful spending?

laska · May 18, 2011

I think many on the Left have a hard time cutting spending because they see it as jobs. Government is seen as a way to give jobs to the poor. If an agency head came to Obama and told him they can restructure their agency and do what they are doing now with half the employees and 40% reduction in cost, I think the administration might very well see that as bad policy. I think deep in their hearts they'd rather hire additional people and give everyone raises. They don't seem to realize this inefficiency leads to lower living standards across the board. The labor that an efficient government would free up would be directed in creating additional goods and services elsewhere, increasing the total economic pie. Maybe an over simplification and not giving them more credit but that is what their rhetoric seems to imply.

Renae · May 18, 2011

Catawba said:
Agreed, we can no longer afford the unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy that added $3 trillion to our debt, or the military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world combined, or the 3 optional wars in the Middle East. Where do I sign up to cut that wasteful spending?

Just exactly where do you come up with these numbers? Democratic Underground Mother Jones?

Catawba · May 18, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Just exactly where do you come up with these numbers? Democratic Underground Mother Jones?

No, actually, they came from CBO, the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, 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

PeteEU · May 18, 2011

Catawba said:
No, actually, they came from CBO, the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, 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

Stop providing them with facts. You know it hurts their brains. And you also know that quoting the CBO and DOD will just make them liberal commie leftest muslim terrorist harbouring organisations.. that is till the next time that the right uses the CBO and DOD as evidence of course!

Jetboogieman · May 18, 2011

PeteEU said:
Stop providing them with facts. You know it hurts their brains. And you also know that quoting the CBO and DOD will just make them liberal commie leftest muslim terrorist harbouring organisations.. that is till the next time that the right uses the CBO and DOD as evidence of course!

Thats all well and good, and yes defense spending should be cut, but when you take the time to look at the numbers and the projections, medicare, Medicaid and social security will put america so far into the red, it's actually scary.

Rgardless of how some of the righties on this board word their arguments, about "getting the leeching masses off the government teet bull****" they're not wrong about how much these programs are unsustainable. They are.

So you can cut defense all you want, but in reality, its hardly the long term fiscal challenge the US actually faces.

Partly, these programs are so badly run and organized, none of this surprises me.

Catawba · May 18, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
Thats all well and good, and yes defense spending should be cut, but when you take the time to look at the numbers and the projections, medicare, Medicaid and social security will put america so far into the red, it's actually scary.

Rgardless of how some of the righties on this board word their arguments, about "getting the leeching masses off the government teet bull****" they're not wrong about how much these programs are unsustainable. They are.

So you can cut defense all you want, but in reality, its hardly the long term fiscal challenge the US actually faces.

Partly, these programs are so badly run and organized, none of this surprises me.

Our bloated military spending combined with the decade long wars in the middle east are no small spending item. Cutting them will make a big difference. Yes, M/M and SS have become unsustainable over the long haul, but not because of the programs themselves which are run with much less overhead and none of the profit or risks that a private system could provide.

What must be reformed is the root cause of the problems behind the unsustainability. For M/M it is the fact that we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world. That must be addressed or healthcare will become unaffordable no matter who runs it. For SS, we must replace the money that was stolen from the fund through tax cuts by increasing the cap on contributions.

That is the kind of reform that make the most sense to me.

PeteEU · May 18, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
Thats all well and good, and yes defense spending should be cut, but when you take the time to look at the numbers and the projections, medicare, Medicaid and social security will put america so far into the red, it's actually scary.

Yes it does look scary... that is how it was designed to look. Like it or not, if you want to have SS, Medicare and Aid then you HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. And since these 3 things actually benefit the average American far more than a bloated military force, then I will say at any time.. cut your military spending first then see what is needed to balance things out. You need to raise taxes to pay for these things as well.. there is no way around it. Dump/raise the capital gains tax would help a ton. Stop giving tax cuts to companies that have billions in profits and force them to pay taxes for their American profits.

Rgardless of how some of the righties on this board word their arguments, about "getting the leeching masses off the government teet bull****" they're not wrong about how much these programs are unsustainable. They are.

No they are not. That is the whole point. They are only as unsustainable as you want them to be. If you want to have SS, then you need to pay for it. If you want to have Medicare/aid then you have to pay for it. This comes via taxes, like it or not. And when you cut taxes, then you need to cut spending across the board to pay for said tax cuts.. simple economics that the US right forgot when Ronald Reagan came around.

This whole debate by the "righties" is about dumping these 3 programs because they are ideological against such programs since it does not give them money. Like it or not, what the US right wants is a class society of old, the very class society that was done away with pretty much by having SS and Medicare/Aid. And that is why the right has for decades cut away at the sustainability of said programs by "borrowing" or cutting money from them, so that they would become unsustainable. That way they could get rid of the programs and plunge the US back to the dark ages again. At the same time of course, their pet programs got more and more funding... of course...

If you want to get rid of the middle class and put your old people in mass poverty as it was before SS, then by all means get rid of your programs.. but dont come crying when you become a 3rd world country because you cant take care of your old people and people are dieing of preventable and curable ailments .. no wait they already doing that.

So you can cut defense all you want, but in reality, its hardly the long term fiscal challenge the US actually faces.

Partly, these programs are so badly run and organized, none of this surprises me.

HAHAH, they are run better than the private sector lol. Their administrative costs are next to non compared to the bloated private sector healthcare industry. Fix your bloated and uncompetitive monopolistic healthcare system first before touching Medicare/aid.

Like it or not, what the right is proposing is out to hurt the vulnerable and elderly... what is next.. children in mines again?

Catawba · May 18, 2011

PeteEU said:
Yes it does look scary... that is how it was designed to look. Like it or not, if you want to have SS, Medicare and Aid then you HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. And since these 3 things actually benefit the average American far more than a bloated military force, then I will say at any time.. cut your military spending first then see what is needed to balance things out. You need to raise taxes to pay for these things as well.. there is no way around it. Dump/raise the capital gains tax would help a ton. Stop giving tax cuts to companies that have billions in profits and force them to pay taxes for their American profits.

No they are not. That is the whole point. They are only as unsustainable as you want them to be. If you want to have SS, then you need to pay for it. If you want to have Medicare/aid then you have to pay for it. This comes via taxes, like it or not. And when you cut taxes, then you need to cut spending across the board to pay for said tax cuts.. simple economics that the US right forgot when Ronald Reagan came around.

This whole debate by the "righties" is about dumping these 3 programs because they are ideological against such programs since it does not give them money. Like it or not, what the US right wants is a class society of old, the very class society that was done away with pretty much by having SS and Medicare/Aid. And that is why the right has for decades cut away at the sustainability of said programs by "borrowing" or cutting money from them, so that they would become unsustainable. That way they could get rid of the programs and plunge the US back to the dark ages again. At the same time of course, their pet programs got more and more funding... of course...

If you want to get rid of the middle class and put your old people in mass poverty as it was before SS, then by all means get rid of your programs.. but dont come crying when you become a 3rd world country because you cant take care of your old people and people are dieing of preventable and curable ailments .. no wait they already doing that.

HAHAH, they are run better than the private sector lol. Their administrative costs are next to non compared to the bloated private sector healthcare industry. Fix your bloated and uncompetitive monopolistic healthcare system first before touching Medicare/aid.

Like it or not, what the right is proposing is out to hurt the vulnerable and elderly... what is next.. children in mines again?

Amen! Excellent description of exactly what's happened and what needs to be done! :sun

hazlnut · May 18, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government - The Washington Post

If this doesn't tell you we've over reached our bounds, nothing will. Raiding pensions to pay for spending we cannot afford?

CUT THE SPENDING. Period. Don't think short term and demand taxes go up, that's a blip, and harms longer term economic growth. Cut spending.

Raise taxes on the super-wealthy. 49%. Raise capital gains over 500K - 40%.

Cut all tax loopholes for luxury real estate, second homes, vacation homes. Cut all tax credits for luxury items like Gulfstream Jets, Yachts, Limos, etc.

Cut all tax credits to big oil.

Beging imposing fines on all delinquent defense contracts. Or claw back the money.

Tax all executive bonus compensation over $99k at 90% - make it retroactive for the past decade.

Nationalize Oil companies.

BAM - no National Debt.

PeteEU · May 18, 2011

hazlnut said:
Raise taxes on the super-wealthy. 49%. Raise capital gains over 500K - 40%.

Cut all tax loopholes for luxury real estate, second homes, vacation homes. Cut all tax credits for luxury items like Gulfstream Jets, Yachts, Limos, etc.

Cut all tax credits to big oil.

Beging imposing fines on all delinquent defense contracts. Or claw back the money.

Tax all executive bonus compensation over $99k at 90% - make it retroactive for the past decade.

Nationalize Oil companies.

BAM - no National Debt.

Okay I would not be that drastic hehe, but the idea is there.

Income since 1999 has gone DOWN.. considerably in fact. But costs have gone up for various reasons. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Now SS goes up because of inflation and the fact there are more older people. Not much you can do about that unless you implement death panels or kill people off. Fixing the present problem is wayyyy too late since the baby boomers are retiring. However over the next decade or so that will naturally fix it self as well. But it should not need fixing because the money is there.. but successive administrations have stolen that money making the whole SS system non-viable.. most of these administrations being Republican.

Medicare/aid has gone up because of inflation as well, but has gone even more up because of the over all healthcare inflation is higher than the normal inflation in the US.. in fact much much higher. On top of that, there are more people in the US (20 million or so since 2000), and more elderly. On top of that economic crisis causes economic ruin for many people who then rely on medicaid to get last gasp healthcare. All this contributes to higher costs in both programs and is not something you realistically can change unless you start kicking out people and killing off the poor or denying healthcare to sick and injured people.

On the flip side, income has gone down. Personal income tax reciepts was about 880 billion in 1999, and is around 900 billion according to the last budget numbers in 2010. That is without taking inflation into consideration. To maintain just the same level as in 1999, then this years personal tax income should be 1.15 trillion but ... it aint. It is of course the same for corporate income tax. The only thing that has followed inflation some what is SS tax income ironically enough.

So that is the crut of the problem.. higher spending based on natural growth and more over all spending (military) vs lower income gives a massive deficit and growing debt.. it is economics 101 and no amount of right wing spin can change these facts. The US needs to increase its revenue period, while dealing with the natural expansion of mandatory programs due to population increase and inflation. The only thing you can effectively control on the front is the much higher healthcare inflation.. fix that and the pain of medicare/aid wont be so bad as it is now.

Grant · May 18, 2011

Catawba said:
No, actually, they came from CBO, the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, 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

Instead of raising taxes why not spend less?

Perhaps those Cowboy poet contests, as one example, aren't really essential, despite what Harry Reid says.

Renae · May 18, 2011

Catawba said:
No, actually, they came from CBO,

Who are never wrong right?

Catawba said:
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/s...=Y&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=rr9mx&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/s...=Y&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=rr9mx&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

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kandahar · May 18, 2011

MrVicchio said:
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. :roll:

MrVicchio said:
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.

MrVicchio said:
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.

MrVicchio said:
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.

Renae · May 18, 2011

Kandahar said:
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. :roll:

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.

Kandahar said:
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?

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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?

Kandahar said:
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.

Catawba · May 18, 2011

MrVicchio said:
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!

VanceMack · May 18, 2011

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

Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

Grant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor

Renae

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Renae

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Renae

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

laska

Renae

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

PeteEU

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

PeteEU

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

hazlnut

PeteEU

Grant

Renae

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Renae

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.