CBO: Deficit would soar in coming decades despite Obama's health overhaul

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

One person on this thread has actually had the balls to say that Medicare needs to be cut. NavyDave ran away as he usually does when specifics were requested of him.

So far, we are doing great in cutting the budget and we don't even need votes.

Seriously, someone explain to me how to cut Medicare and Social Security by - say - 20 percent without causing a revolution. I want to hear it.

[SnyderShrugged]

One person on this thread has actually had the balls to say that Medicare needs to be cut. NavyDave ran away as he usually does when specifics were requested of him.

So far' date=' we are doing great in cutting the budget and we don't even need votes.

Seriously, someone explain to me how to cut Medicare and Social Security by - say - 20 percent without causing a revolution. I want to hear it.[/quote']

make that 2. There is no Federal spending that should be off limits for cuts. NONE

Easy, just let all people under 40 opt out right this instant.

btw, were there really idiots out there that didnt think the deficit would soar after massive spending was increased even more massively?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

make that 2. There is no Federal spending that should be off limits for cuts. NONE

Easy, just let all people under 40 opt out right this instant.

If everyone under 40 opts out of Social Security, they would stil have pay Social Securtiy tax or else you cannot pay the benefits to the Baby Boomers.

So, I would be paying taxes for a program I would never receive. Why would I do that?

[Switchgear]

So' date=' I would be paying taxes for a program I would never receive. Why would I do that?[/quote']

You could as easily ask "Why do I do that?".

[Hubbs]

Hubbs,

An increase in revenue from lower taxes only happens on the right side of the curve. Every study I have ever seen suggests we are on the left.

I point you to the Research Quantification part of your link. It's Wikipedia, but the explanation is pretty much in line with what I have seen...and had to prove to my boss last year after a disagreement about the results of the tax cuts on our revenue.

Oh, there's certainly a limit to the Laffer Curve. I've seen articles that presented some compelling evidence on both sides of the Bush tax cuts. I doubt anyone will able to determine the perfect tax rates (partially because the most likely reality is that there's no such thing; economic behavior changes all the time, and the "perfect" rates would have to change in stride). And I do think Cato makes a very good point - a 1% increase in economic activity from the hypothetical tax cuts in the rest of your post seems like a lowball estimate. On the other hand, I would probably differ from Cato in that I think higher taxes on the top income brackets make sense, if they're combined with lower taxes on lower brackets and a much lower corporate tax rate (along with the widespread elimination of tax laws that would allow executives to claim that a bunch of money is being spent to keep the company growing, when they're actually using it as de facto income for themselves).

I guess I disagree with just about everyone.

One person on this thread has actually had the balls to say that Medicare needs to be cut. NavyDave ran away as he usually does when specifics were requested of him.

So far, we are doing great in cutting the budget and we don't even need votes.

Seriously, someone explain to me how to cut Medicare and Social Security by - say - 20 percent without causing a revolution. I want to hear it.

What? I know plenty of people around here who are willing to say that. Hell, I think that's something that generally unites the politicos of the Tailgate. Sadly, most of us also agree that tackling the Medicare/SS problem is so politically dangerous that our leaders aren't likely to do anything substantial until a true crisis hits. But I think Larry's articulated a simple, solid solution (three cheers for alliteration) many times. I'll play around with the numbers a bit, but the basic idea is announcing that, as of right now, anyone 50 or older is set in the old plan. You're good. Nothing changes. Go about your business. If you're 48 or 49, the age at which you'll qualify for Medicare and SS goes up one year. If you're 46 or 47, it goes up two years. And so on, until we've reset the age at 70 (or 71, or 72, etc.). That way, we're not screwing over anyone close to retiring now by moving the goalposts, but we're also re-aligning the long-term plan due to the mathematical changes caused by longer life expectancy.

[stupidmorals]

Blaming it on liberals is silly - every politician of every political hue is terrified of the most powerful force in American politics: the AARP. Cranky retirees. They are greedy, they are easily scared, and they don't care if the country goes bankrupt as long as it doesn't happen until after they are gone. They will happily spend 10 million of your tax dollars to get a heart operation that will keep them alive for three more weeks.

And they ALWAYS vote.

The Inuit knew what to do about this problem... :evilg:

[Thiebear]

Again:

We really need to make social security the equivalent age as when started adjusted yearly so people don't freak out when it changes every 40years: approx age is: 77yrs old.

AND yes i realize i'll just barely miss out on the 2600 a month for 17years...

We really need to make Medicare and Chips for Poverty and below: no more 300% above.

Then we can work on this exempt my friends, punish my enemies health care bill.

[SnyderShrugged]

If everyone under 40 opts out of Social Security' date=' they would stil have pay Social Securtiy tax or else you cannot pay the benefits to the Baby Boomers.

So, I would be paying taxes for a program I would never receive. Why would I do that?[/quote']

You are assuming everyone would opt out. I dont know if that would be the case. There are plenty who still think the Federal teet is viable for them and will act accordingly. Also, it would have to be a phase out approach not en masse.

lastly, they are already are paying for a program that you wont benefit from, so its a moot debate point to begin with.

[TheGreatBuzz]

lastly, they are already are paying for a program that you wont benefit from, so its a moot debate point to begin with.

I read an article a few years ago that was about how Social Security will run out one day. It said that it could potentially bring down the government when all the people who paid into it don't get money back out of it and sue the government. Don't know how realistic that is. I would assume they would just pass a law saying you can't sue to get your $$ back. Which I think is BS but doesn't mean it woudn't happen.

It will be interesting.

[twa]

Seriously' date=' someone explain to me how to cut Medicare and Social Security by - say - 20 percent without causing a revolution. I want to hear it.[/quote']

Gradually limit covered procedures and access ,as well as encouraging euthanasia.

Combine that with all the anti-depressants they want for free.

They'll never know what hit them:evilg:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I read an article a few years ago that was about how Social Security will run out one day. It said that it could potentially bring down the government when all the people who paid into it don't get money back out of it and sue the government. Don't know how realistic that is. I would assume they would just pass a law saying you can't sue to get your $$ back. Which I think is BS but doesn't mean it woudn't happen.

It will be interesting.

You can't sue the government to get your money back already. That was a very dumb article.

It still amazes me how many people don't understand how Social Security actually works. People seem to think it's a 401K.

PS I'm in favor of rising the retirement age and means testing. Not sure of the economic impact of it nor the political feasibility.

[gbear]

If you want big cuts, I want to cut social security. I have been one proposing a slash to SS for a few years now.

I want to return it to the propose it was originally intended. It was supposed to provide a security blanket in old age so we wouldn't be throwing grandma and grandpa under a bus when they got old. It was supposed to provide subsistance funds for the elderly/unable to work...

Then we started tying it to what was put in so if you made $100k, you got a portion of that because after all, you paid a percentage of it, so you get a percentage of your highest contributions. That right there is the beginning of scope creap...the bane of budgeting.

You don't need $30k to put cereal in the cupboard, milk in the fridge and roof over your head...at least in most of the country. What's more, if your investments are already paying you $60k, the government doesn't need to be paying the mortgage on your second house. It was supposed to be insurance. Now people are mad that it is a bad "investment" unless they can get their money out of it. Ever tried to get your money out of your home insurance? That's how ridiculous I think the "we are robbing the elderly" statements are which come out every time somebody talks about reducing benefits.

[Predicto]

I think Social Security is relatively easy to fix, mostly by raising the eligibility date.

Medicare? I have NO idea how to fix that behemoth.

[PeterMP]

I think Social Security is relatively easy to fix, mostly by raising the eligibility date.

Medicare? I have NO idea how to fix that behemoth.

Long term, you shift funding away from health extending/life ending research/benefits and more to productivity based health out comes.

(Essentially, you eliminate funding for research related to any disease that strikes predominantly people over 60.)

[GhostofSparta]

Long term, you shift funding away from health extending/life ending research/benefits and more to productivity based health out comes.

(Essentially, you eliminate funding for research related to any disease that strikes predominantly people over 60.)

Financially it makes sense. In reality you would have people screaming about "agism" and "euthanasia" and any other number of things that people over 60 (who, consequently, are the largest voting bloc.....) will say to make sure that it never happens.

[Skin'Em84]

What am I missing as to why, economically, we can't raise taxes?

I know, politically, it would probably cause complete chaos.

[daveakl]

Blaming it on liberals is silly - every politician of every political hue is terrified of the most powerful force in American politics: the AARP. Cranky retirees. They are greedy, they are easily scared, and they don't care if the country goes bankrupt as long as it doesn't happen until after they are gone. They will happily spend 10 million of your tax dollars to get a heart operation that will keep them alive for three more weeks.

And they ALWAYS vote.

BINGO!!!!

If you want to fix the problem convince the 18-40 ager group that if things do not change then their taxes will go way up (taxes, fees, whatever you want to call it) and that the way to fix it is to drastically change SS, Defense spending, Medicare, etc.

Then convince that group to vote in numbers.

Good luck

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Financially it makes sense. In reality you would have people screaming about "agism" and "euthanasia" and any other number of things that people over 60 (who, consequently, are the largest voting bloc.....) will say to make sure that it never happens.

Try "death panels."

The article said that the health care package does help the budget though, just not enough. Just to be clear.

[Hubbs]

What am I missing as to why' date=' economically, we can't raise taxes?

I know, politically, it would probably cause complete chaos.[/quote']

Economically, raising taxes can actually result in decreased revenue. Here's the Laffer Curve link.

[twa]

Financially it makes sense. In reality you would have people screaming about "agism" and "euthanasia" and any other number of things that people over 60 (who, consequently, are the largest voting bloc.....) will say to make sure that it never happens.

Make voter disenfranchisement a requirement for taking SS or medicare/welfare.

Tulane, that is only if they make forecast cuts right?

[Predicto]

Economically, raising taxes can actually result in decreased revenue. Here's the Laffer Curve link.

Again, though, not in the circumstances we are under. If marginal tax rates were double what they are now, then lowering them would add revenue.

[Thiebear]

Why tax people more for things we don't need?

We don't need medicare to go to people making 40k+

We don't need social security going to people under 70 or if you make 80k a year without it. ("Social Security" not "free for everyone"

We don't need chips going to kids of families make 80k.

We don't need to exclude cadillac plans only because your a union.

We don't need 99plus weeks of unemployment when a large portion of the people wait till the last couple weeks to start looking.

[JimboDaMan]

Long term, you shift funding away from health extending/life ending research/benefits and more to productivity based health out comes.

(Essentially, you eliminate funding for research related to any disease that strikes predominantly people over 60.)

But...but that would be.....

RATIONING! And a DEATH PANEL! You're going to LET GRANDMA DIE!

[Hubbs]

Again, though, not in the circumstances we are under. If marginal tax rates were double what they are now, then lowering them would add revenue.

Again, that's far from factual.

[PeterMP]

But...but that would be.....

RATIONING! And a DEATH PANEL! You're going to LET GRANDMA DIE!

(I reduced the font size.)

Yes, but you could do it quietly w/o people noticing. If the NIH shifted their funding from research related to things that kill (old) people to things like autism, childhood cancers, traumatic injury recovery, infectious diseases, etc most people wouldn't really notice.

It certainly isn't something that would get the attention that a healthcare bill does, it isn't something that most people would vote base on (I don't think), and you would have an affective "answer" for those that did complain (think about the children (while running ads with bald kids from chemo treatment from cancer) and there is only so much research money).

The problem is over the last 30 years that we've gotten a lot better at keeping people alive (e.g heart disease and cancer are down and more treatable than ever) and not a lot better at keeping people producitve (e.g. autism and various infectious diseases are up).

The thing that medicine did early that I think really helped society (and I think helped lead to the post-war advancement of society) is that it really helped make people productive over a life time (e.g. antibiotics extended people's lives during their productive ages or allowed them to reach their productive ages), but didn't affect deaths of people in the non-productive times of their life so much (people still died of heart disease and cancer as they reached their less productive years).

This though caused a turn to attention to the diseases that killed (mostly) people that are (on the verge of becoming) nonproductive (e.g. many cancers and heart disease).

Now, we've done well with them, but we've lagged behind on worrying about the ones that extend productivity.

We need a shift back to predominanty to worrying about ones that will help people reach and through their most productive ages.