• 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!

Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

Who's to blame for going of the the fiscal cliff?

  • Democrats

    Votes: 8 12.7%

  • Republicans

    Votes: 32 50.8%

  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 23 36.5%
  • Total voters
    63
Thrilla said:
..and in internet forums.. and in halls of congress... and in living rooms across the nation.
Click to expand...
Boehner and his people know what just happened. They don't need it explained to them. TV people and living rooms are almost all out-of-the-loop.

Thrilla said:
if no compromise plan comes about... who will you blame?.... given your post history around here, I'd assume you will be blaming Republicans.
Click to expand...
It will depend on why. If it's because the Republicans decide despite the election to stick with the notions of Norquist and continue playing the same game of obstructionist nonsense they have been playing since 2007, they will continue to be the party at fault.

Of course, Reid may be able to rewrite the Senate rules on Jan 3 which would create a whole new ballgame over there. And the Dems plus 18 fed-up Republican moderates could always control the House if Boehner can't.
 
ChrisL said:
The retirement age DOES have to go up because of the baby boomer generation. There are SO many retiring and NOT enough younger people working. The baby boomer generation is going to eat up SS, and it will probably be gone by the time I retire, if I ever get to.
Click to expand...

True, and I agree that we do need improvement here however, social security is separate from this budget shortfall.
Congress, like a mentally challanged person, can only handle one thing at a time.
1 (right now)... Correct tax rate for the wealthy
2 (next week) .... Budget cuts
3 (next month)......Social security reform
All of this should have been done years ago...We did have a fair tax rate a generation ago....
With the Congress that we have right now, I doubt if they can do a number one and a number two at the same time when using the facilities...
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Boehner and his people know what just happened. They don't need it explained to them. TV people and living rooms are almost all out-of-the-loop.


It will depend on why. If it's because the Republicans decide despite the election to stick with the notions of Norquist and continue playing the same game of obstructionist nonsense they have been playing since 2007, they will continue to be the party at fault.

Of course, Reid may be able to rewrite the Senate rules on Jan 3 which would create a whole new ballgame over there. And the Dems plus 18 fed-up Republican moderates could always control the House if Boehner can't.
Click to expand...

as I suspected....you'll blame Republicans.
 
Republicans will probably take the blame, but it's both parties at fault.
 
earthworm said:
True, and I agree that we do need improvement here however, social security is separate from this budget shortfall.
Congress, like a mentally challanged person, can only handle one thing at a time.
1 (right now)... Correct tax rate for the wealthy
2 (next week) .... Budget cuts
3 (next month)......Social security reform
All of this should have been done years ago...We did have a fair tax rate a generation ago....
With the Congress that we have right now, I doubt if they can do a number one and a number two at the same time when using the facilities...
Click to expand...

:lol: :doh Interesting that the order you, and Obama, like is #1) give the gov't more of someone else's money and then let's talk about maybe spending less, like should have been done earlier. ;)
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Retirement age was already increased in 1983. And Social Security pays for itself so well that it is sitting on a $2.7 trillion surplus. SS plainly isn't the problem. And you might want to remember that the reason people are entitled to SS benefits is that they have already paid for them.


This is all just foolish. The revenues that any tax scheme returns depend upon the rates that are set within it, not upon what type of a tax it is.
Click to expand...
1. By definition, SS pays out more to an individual then it takes in. Paying $1000 to be guaranteed $2000 is not "already paying for it."
2. Have you ever taken above a high school level economics course? The source absolutely DOES matter.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
The retirement age DOES have to go up because of the baby boomer generation. There are SO many retiring and NOT enough younger people working. The baby boomer generation is going to eat up SS, and it will probably be gone by the time I retire, if I ever get to.
Click to expand...

You can only raise the retirement age so far and why only for SS and not civil service/military retirement? Once you accept that the number of years of retirement is a big issue, then why is that not also an issue for gov't employee retirement? Why should J. Q. Priavte work until age 70 and J. Q. Public work until only 55 (or earlier) to "retire"? You do realize that the higher the SS retirement age is, the more that will qualify for higher[i/] benefits due to disability thus, for every worker that waits until after age 70, three more will rightly claim the elevated (20% more?) disability amount, retroactively to their disability date. While an office worker may hang on working until 70, I can guarantee that most construction or trades workers will not.
 
ReformCollege said:
1. By definition, SS pays out more to an individual then it takes in. Paying $1000 to be guaranteed $2000 is not "already paying for it."
2. Have you ever taken above a high school level economics course? The source absolutely DOES matter.
Click to expand...

But consider that each $1 (or hour of labor) paid into SS in 1970 is worth over $7 (or hour of labor) in 2012 dollars simply due to inflation alone, not counting any "interest" accrued in the "trust me" fund. Not counting the effect of inflation (or time value of money) is very dishonest, when computing things simply using your $1 of money in = $1 of money out "magic formula".
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Fang said:
Well, let me try to explain. Deficit spending is spending that creates a deficit. Deficits themselves are calculated as spending minus revenues. But tax increases cause revenues to go up. If they go up by more than one-tenth of what had been the deficit, then raising taxes will have cut deficit spending by 10%. Do you see how that might work now?
Click to expand...
I understand the math, professor. What I don't trust is the human element. You're assuming that the government will hold up its end of the equation. There's no guarantee that they will decrease the deficit spending to go along with the tax increases. Do you see how that might not work now?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
But consider that each $1 paid into SS in 1970 is worth over $7 in 2012 dollars simply due to inflation alone, not counting any "interest" accrued in the "trust me" fund. Not counting the effect of inflation (or time value of money) is very dishonest, when computing things simply using your $1 of money in = $1 of money out "magic formula".
Click to expand...

I wasn't being dishonest about it. I'm not representing actual numbers, and I was talking hypothetically using values corrected for inflation. I think you'll agree with what I have to say in response, but I'm still going to put it out there. But, I'll respond to your problem with two points.

1. SS is by definition a Ponzi scheme (new entrees pay for departees, only works until the money runs out) The first SS recipient paid just $44 in taxes, and collected $20,993 in benefits.
2. the payouts are formulated based on a life expectancy of 70 years, and a worker to recipient ratio of 16 to 1.

Basically, current retirees are getting far more than they paid into for SS, and they expect my generation to pay more in taxes and collect lower benefits so they can maintain their good deal. I say screw that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can only raise the retirement age so far and why only for SS and not civil service/military retirement? Once you accept that the number of years of retirement is a big issue, then why is that not also an issue for gov't employee retirement? Why should J. Q. Priavte work until age 70 and J. Q. Public work until only 55 (or earlier) to "retire"? You do realize that the higher the SS retirement age is, the more that will qualify for higher[i/] benefits due to disability thus, for every worker that waits until after age 70, three more will rightly claim the elevated (20% more?) disability amount, retroactively to their disability date. While an office worker may hang on working until 70, I can guarantee that most construction or trades workers will not.
Click to expand...


Which is why you have to adjust the formula for the increased amount to be later as well. And yes, J. Q. public should have the same retirement age as J.Q. private.
 
ChrisL said:
The retirement age DOES have to go up because of the baby boomer generation. There are SO many retiring and NOT enough younger people working. The baby boomer generation is going to eat up SS, and it will probably be gone by the time I retire, if I ever get to.
Click to expand...
The baby boomer situation was already recognized in the 1970's. That's why the 1983 revisions were done and why we have been building up a surplus ever since. Even in the 25 years out worst case scenarios projected by the SS trustees, SS would be able to pay about 75% of scheduled benefits in perpetuity even if we do nothing at all. And 75% of scheduled benefits will be worth more then than 100% of scheduled benefits is worth now. You've bought a line of right-wing scare tactics.
 
Thrilla said:
as I suspected....you'll blame Republicans.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you believe it a certainty that Republicans -- even robbed of their primary purpose of making Obama a one-term President -- will continue to behave like so many crybabies and spoiled brats. If that is the course they indeed follow, why would anyone NOT blame them?
 
Cardinal Fang said:
The baby boomer situation was already recognized in the 1970's. That's why the 1983 revisions were done and why we have been building up a surplus ever since. Even in the 25 years out worst case scenarios projected by the SS trustees, SS would be able to pay about 75% of scheduled benefits in perpetuity even if we do nothing at all. And 75% of scheduled benefits will be worth more then than 100% of scheduled benefits is worth now. You've bought a line of right-wing scare tactics.
Click to expand...

You should read this. Social Security Basics - Just Facts
 
ReformCollege said:
I wasn't being dishonest about it. I'm not representing actual numbers, and I was talking hypothetically using values corrected for inflation. I think you'll agree with what I have to say in response, but I'm still going to put it out there. But, I'll respond to your problem with two points.

1. SS is by definition a Ponzi scheme (new entrees pay for departees, only works until the money runs out) The first SS recipient paid just $44 in taxes, and collected $20,993 in benefits.
2. the payouts are formulated based on a life expectancy of 70 years, and a worker to recipient ratio of 16 to 1.

Basically, current retirees are getting far more than they paid into for SS, and they expect my generation to pay more in taxes and collect lower benefits so they can maintain their good deal. I say screw that.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting to the crux of the real SS issue. More retirees per worker paying in, paying for more years of benefits per retiree and more retirees living long enough to get any benefits at all. Any actuary will tell you that more contributions are needed and/or less benefits may be paid out. Since we can't shoot retirees, raise the retirement age past 70 or create more workers, those now working must pay more. This can be done two ways, raise the payroll tax percentage by about 1/3 (for worker and employer) or remove the income cap and apply SS taxation to all income at the current rates. Another way to get SS cost savings is to reduce the retirement benefit costs. This may be done in two ways, as well, means test benefits such the SS is paid only up to the level of 250% to 300% of the maximum SS benefit, squeazing only the richest of retirees or to limit COLA adjustments and screw every retiree, squeazing the poorest retirees the hardest.
 
ReformCollege said:
1. By definition, SS pays out more to an individual then it takes in. Paying $1000 to be guaranteed $2000 is not "already paying for it."
Click to expand...
It isn't by definition, but but most people do collect more in benefits than what they have paid in as premiums. Those are nominal dollars of course. There is meanwhile that $2.7 trillion surpluis still sitting on the books. People paid to put that there.

ReformCollege said:
2. Have you ever taken above a high school level economics course? The source absolutely DOES matter.
Click to expand...
All of my degrees are in economics, and I am at the back end of a (rather lucrative) 40+ year career as a practicing professional in that very field. What have you been up to?
 
Dooble said:
I understand the math, professor.
Click to expand...
I've rarely found that to be the case in this forum. The math skills of most posters are simply atrocious.

Dooble said:
What I don't trust is the human element. You're assuming that the government will hold up its end of the equation. There's no guarantee that they will decrease the deficit spending to go along with the tax increases. Do you see how that might not work now?
Click to expand...
None of which -- even if remotely valid -- would have a thing to do with additional revenues decreasing deficit spending which was the ACTUAL POINT as you might remember but prefer not to because of what it would say about math skills.
 
ReformCollege said:
1. SS is by definition a Ponzi scheme (new entrees pay for departees, only works until the money runs out)
Click to expand...
Total nonsense. Ponzi schemes fail because they lack access to an actual stream of revenue. SS is plugged into the pretty much the most dependable revenue stream in the world -- tghe payrolls of covered US workers. The money doesn't run out so long as a single Americian is working in a covered position.

ReformCollege said:
2. the payouts are formulated based on a life expectancy of 70 years, and a worker to recipient ratio of 16 to 1.
Click to expand...
More total bunk. Neither number factors into the calculaton of benefits. These are variables that analysts (some well qaulified and some not) use to estimate what the actual forward balance between SS receipts and outlays will look like in the decades ahead.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Apparently, you believe it a certainty that Republicans -- even robbed of their primary purpose of making Obama a one-term President -- will continue to behave like so many crybabies and spoiled brats. If that is the course they indeed follow, why would anyone NOT blame them?
Click to expand...

of course I believe Republicans will continue to act like spoiled brats....I believe Democrats will as well.

all involved have shown themselves to be spoiled brats.

I think folks should prepare for the fiscal cliff... it seems we will be diving off of it shortly.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
None of which -- even if remotely valid -- would have a thing to do with additional revenues decreasing deficit spending which was the ACTUAL POINT as you might remember but prefer not to because of what it would say about math skills.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to tell me that humans have nothing to do with the deficit spending?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Now we are getting to the crux of the real SS issue. More retirees per worker paying in, paying for more years of benefits per retiree and more retirees living long enough to get any benefits at all.
Click to expand...
The actual worker-to-retiree ratio in 1975 was 3.2-to-1. Today, it is 3.1-to-1. The SS Trustees predict it will drop to 2.0-to-1 in 2070. They do that by projecting that both legal and illegal immigration will be flat over most of the next 75 years. Wanna bet?

ttwtt78640 said:
Any actuary will tell you that more contributions are needed and/or less benefits may be paid out.
Click to expand...
Any well-informed analyst would caution that either approach is tantamount to attempting to dismantle the system. Understand there is no actually demonstrated need to do anything at all. If the SS trustees are even slightly off in their projections of GDP, or of no net immigration, or in their assuimption that life expectancy will continue to grow at the same rate over the next 75 years as it did between 1975 and 2000, then the SS Trust Fund will never be exhausted and the system will be able to pay 100% of currently scheduled benefits in perpetuity. This is the other side of the coin. Better look at that one as well.
 
Mycroft said:
Your post is so full of inaccuracies and omissions that attempting to answer it seriously would mean completely scrapping your post.

Instead, I'll just answer the question in your thread title: It doesn't matter.

A better question would be: Who loses? Answer: The American people.

You got anymore lying political hackery you want to share with us?
Click to expand...

It is the Republicans that are the losers and they want us all to be losers too.
Misery loves company.
 
Thrilla said:
I think folks should prepare for the fiscal cliff... it seems we will be diving off of it shortly.
Click to expand...
Congress will be back in town this week. At least the Democrats will. We'll see if the Republicans are up to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom