JMS Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 If any of this were true, we would not have shortages now. I'm sorry but replacing hard tax dollars with bonds is not a solution. If anybody believe it were, both sides would not be scrambling to figure out a way to fix it. As for your characterization that the US government bonds are just paper... That paper is the gold standard for investments. ? What are you talking about? You know another name for a US government bonds? Another name would be the safest investment on earth backed up by the largest most diverse economy on earth through the full faith and credit of the US government... Those words are not an exaggeration those words are fact even today. As for your last statement, that's not accurate. According to an ABC poll taken just last month, over 80% of Americans believe that it is in trouble. 50% of the American people can't tell you the significance of Pearl Harbor with regards to WWII. 70% of the American people believed Saddam Husein was behind the 9/11 attacks on the eve of our invasion of Iraq. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm Don't pin your grasp of reality on what the majority of Americans believe. I mean we live in a republic and not a democracy for a reason if you catch my drift. Social Security is in no immediate danger. From 1998 Social Security Board Of Trustees Announce Social Security Solvent Until 2032 http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/trustees98_press.htm CBO Finds Social Security Solvent for Fifty Years June 14, 2004 By Dean Baker The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/social-security-bytes/cbo-finds-social-security-solvent-for-fifty-years In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 30 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n8 So you ask... what is all the hubub about? Here is the deal. When Social security was running a surplus it was an asset to the US government. That asset in the way of a way of funding the national debt is coming to an end.... Social securitities surplus's are coming to an end. But dumping folks off of the roles of social security in order to put it back into surplus is really what's being talked about here... not saving the program from insolvency.. Hell when FDR first created social security in 1935 it wasn't solvent for 60 years into the future either... It's been tweaked just about every decade to keep in running smoothly and it will be again if it becomes an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 You are wrong. The only problem with Social Security is a purely demographic problem, because people are living longer and longer. It is easily fixed by adjusting the age of SS collection to reflect the real lifespans of Americans in the 21st century. Social Security is not broken, and may well be the most efficient, most effective government program ever enacted in accomplishing its overriding goals (which was to remove the natural human fear of dying in abject poverty, removing social unrest, preserving the free enterprise system, and keeping the US from a socialist revolution). What happens if the U.S. Economy tanks and we go the way of Greece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Here's what I would propose: 1. Medicaid/Medicare -- The biggest reason these programs are so expensive is that health care costs keep rising, and they are rising because health is a profit industry in this country (i.e., drug companies and insurance companies). So my solution would be to have a single payer system, which every other first-world economy in the world has. This will save money by removing health insurers/brokers as the middle men, and would therefore keep costs lower. Basically, Medicare for everyone. 2. Social Security -- This program is actually very well run, doesn't contribute to the deficit (and won't for almost 30 years), and only needs slight tweaking to ensure very long-term sustainability. My solution would not be to decrease benefits (i.e., increase retirement age, means testing, etc.). Instead, end the extremely regressive "cap" on the tax (now at around $106,000) and tax on everyone's entire income instead. 3. Revenue -- This aspect of the budget is completely ignored by Ryan. Any sane budget addresses both spending and revenue, and not just spending. Here, I would let the Bush tax cuts expire, and revert to the tax levels we enjoyed during Clinton (where the economy was great, remember?). I also like the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana. I would also be for a carbon tax to address climate change, which would be partially offset (i.e., removed from the treasury) through tax credits and deductions for middle class and poor taxpayers so that these Americans break even and aren't hurt by the carbon tax. I would also close tax loopholes for corporations. 4. General Spending -- I would decrease military spending, which (other than medicare/medicaid) accounts for the largest share of federal spending by far, and is therefore the best place to look for monetary savings. Ending (or at least ramping down quickly) the war in Afghanistan would be a priority. I would not freeze federal salaries, since that hurts the economy in the long run, but maybe tie salaries to inflation to ensure that nobody is overpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 What happens if the U.S. Economy tanks and we go the way of Greece? Umm, then we are in big trouble. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Social Security is easily fixed by reducing long term pay-outs to match long term pay-ins. It has nothing to do with "making our economy tank." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 What happens if the U.S. Economy tanks and we go the way of Greece? I totally get your fear. I would like to assure you the folks selling you this fear are either stupid, or knowingly misleading you to warp your view of the world. They sell fear because fear is all they have to sell.... The US national debt is today about 100% of GDP... That seems like a lot, and it is but it's not really unmanageable. Being large and so diverse gives us advantages other countries don't. Japan's national debt today is about 200% GDP.. Again, a lot but not unmanageable. Japan is still a triple A bond ranking. Greece's national debt is 156% of GDP... Greeces big problem is their economy isn't that mature or diverse so it's a harder sell to carry that much debt. Another of Greece's problem is they pretty much lied about their debt and deficites in order to gain entrance into the EU. Now France and Germany have loaned them all this money under basically false premises and are faced with cutting them off and writting them off or continuing more of the same. Also the EU has no provisions for expelling members... So basically France and Germany are funding Greece with no real good options for ending it. Shaking the tree and putting a little fear into the greeks to get them to control themselves is about all these larger economies can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I totally get your fear. I would like to assure you the folks selling you this fear are either stupid, or knowingly misleading you to warp your view of the world. They sell fear because fear is all they have to sell....The US national debt is today about 100% of GDP... Japan's national debt today is about 200% GDP.. Greece's national debt is 156% of GDP... Greece's problem is they pretty much lied about their debt and deficites in order to gain entrance into the EU. Now France and Germany have loaned them all this money under basically false premises and are faced with cutting them off and writting them off or continuing more of the same. Also the EU has no provisions for expelling members... So basically France and Germany are funding Greece with no real good options for ending it. Shaking the tree and putting a little fear into the greeks to get them to control themselves is about all these larger economies can do. My fear JMS is that current projections will fall short the more money we print and the further we get in debt. If the goal here is to create a situation in which we can balance our budget and recover from our deficit problems, then it seems to me that we need to prevent our Governments ability to over extend and this is exactly what our Government does by using the funds in Social Security. I just don't see how that could be beneficial. ---------- Post added April-8th-2011 at 01:15 PM ---------- Umm, then we are in big trouble.What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Social Security is easily fixed by reducing long term pay-outs to match long term pay-ins. It has nothing to do with "making our economy tank." Solvency of Social Security is basically predicated on T-Bills. T-Bills are only as good as the Government that is backing them. That Government is as strong as our economy allows us to be. This is the reason I asked that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 My fear JMS is that current projections will fall short the more money we print and the further we get in debt. Actually the more money we print, the less we fall in debt, If we choose to spend that money rather than distribute it in any number of other ways... like making it available for credit to lending institutions or perhaps buying back our immature bonds.. Printing money is cheap With computers we don't even have to actually "print it"... we can just change the numbers in accounts electronically to put more money into the economy. If the goal here is to create a situation in which we can balance our budget and recover from our deficit problems, then it seems to me that we need to prevent our Governments ability to over extend and this is exactly what our Government does by using the funds in Social Security. I just don't see how that could be beneficial. But that's not really THE goal is it. I mean that's A goal. We have higher goals. Our highest goal is to keep the GDP from contracting like it did during the depression. Or secong goal is to reduce unemployment because every unemployed person represents the economy working at less than peak efficiency... Distant third to these goals is that of lowering the deficit.. And again read the links posted above.. social security isn't in trouble... not for decades. We were closer to having trouble with social security in the 70's and 80's than we are today. Also the government really isn't in trouble... We have borrowed a lot of money, and we are going to borrow more... seems to me that we need to prevent our Governments ability to over extend and this is exactly what our Government does by using the funds in Social Security. I just don't see how that could be beneficial. It's benifitical to the social security fund because the government is the gold standard in safe investments... It's better for the long term viablility of the trust fund if it's getting interest on it's capital. It's benficial to the US government because the US government has an interest in benifiting the trust fund, and also has a benifit of having more control and flexibility over the debt it caries.... I guess if you are against all debt you wouldn't think this was a good thing.. But not all debt is bad... Debt incred for infrastructure isn't bad. Debt is also not the worst thing on our economic horizing as a nation. We faced much worse things in 2008 and presently. I mean what's worse than a 14 trillion GDP and a 14 trillion national Debt? A 10 trillion dollar GDP and a 12 trillion dollar national debt. ---------- Post added April-8th-2011 at 03:38 PM ---------- Solvency of Social Security is basically predicated on T-Bills. T-Bills are only as good as the Government that is backing them. That Government is as strong as our economy allows us to be. This is the reason I asked that question. Dude if T-Bills fail nobody is going to be talking about Social Security. Social Security is going to be the least of the nation's problems... But T-Bills are the gold standard for investments.. We barely even pay interest on them in econoic bad times. In 2008 people were even buying them at a loss just for the safety of the investment. T-Bills are in no danger of loosing this premium label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Solvency of Social Security is basically predicated on T-Bills. T-Bills are only as good as the Government that is backing them. That Government is as strong as our economy allows us to be. This is the reason I asked that question. Well, sorta. Really, it's more like the solvency of T-Bills is basically predicated on future Social Security tax revenue, not the other way around. Seriously, if the economy tanks and no one will buy our bonds, we have huge problems. Social security isn't causing that, and getting rid of Social Security wouldn't solve it either. Making Social Security revenue neutral solves Social Security's problems. Tackling the deficit/debt still has to happen, and Medicare is the elephant in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Well, sorta. Really, it's more like the solvency of T-Bills is basically predicated on future Social Security tax revenue, not the other way around. That's not really true... We aren't really having a hard time moving T-Bills and 2011 is the first year we can't really borrow on the surplus. Interest rates today , the incentive for folks to buy T-Bills are a fraction of what they were in the late 70's early 1980's.... They remain as low as they've ever been. I mean who is a safer investment, Red China who has a history of nationalizing foreign investments and a very immature legal code and judicial system. The EU which carries just as much debt as we do and is under serious pressure to dissolve? Japan who has nearly twice our GDP to debt ratio? We are looking good to the global investor and a lot of that has to do with everybody else looking bad. Seriously, if the economy tanks and no one will buy our bonds, we have huge problems. Social security isn't causing that, and getting rid of Social Security wouldn't solve it either. Making Social Security revenue neutral solves Social Security's problems. Tackling the deficit/debt still has to happen, and Medicare is the elephant in the room. I agreed with most of the rest of what you said from a social security perspective. I would just add that social security isn't consuming money from the general ledger as is predicted to occur 2037-2077, somewhere in there.... Today, yesterday and as far back as the 1960's social security receives interest on the money it has loaned the us government. That interest is enough to keep social security in the black for years even decades by the most pessimistic projections.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Medicare (65yrs+) only for those under 60k income. SS (75yrs+) only fo those under 60k income. Korea/Germany/Iraq/Afghanistan back to embassies under 1,000 troops. _________________ Shale oil Rockies explored Bakkan oil ND explored Anwar oil explored Shallow offshore explored sold for 800+ billion a year export kept for 40% of our oil ---------------------------------------- Up NASA a TON: We get so many things from it. Legalized Marijuana can pay for it all by itself. So smoke up for our future. Stop most payouts around the world, no giving to both sides. 45-50% tax on 100k+ (whatever the optimal number (i've seen the chart/don't remember) is until we get back in AAA credit shape) then bring it bck down. Remove all loopholes: Income is Income no matter the sources. **There, that should balance the budget in probably 4 years.. then we can do Cradle to Grave health/education with something paying for it. Win/Win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Medicare (65yrs+) only for those under 60k income.SS (75yrs+) only fo those under 60k income. Korea/Germany/Iraq/Afghanistan back to embassies under 1,000 troops. _________________ Shale oil Rockies explored Bakkan oil ND explored Anwar oil explored Shalloe offshore explored sold for 800+ billion a year ---------------------------------------- 45-50% tax on 100k+ (whatever the optimal number (i've seen the chart/don't remember) is until we get back in AAA credit shape) then bring it bck down. Remove all loopholes: Income is Income no matter the sources. To fix medicare you have to get a handle on the double digit growth in costs which the current for profit system has yeilded for the last four decades. If you fail to do that no solution is sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Medicare (65yrs+) only for those under 60k income.SS (75yrs+) only fo those under 60k income. Korea/Germany/Iraq/Afghanistan back to embassies under 1,000 troops. _________________ Shale oil Rockies explored Bakkan oil ND explored Anwar oil explored Shallow offshore explored sold for 800+ billion a year export kept for 40% of our oil ---------------------------------------- Up NASA a TON: We get so many things from it. Legalized Marijuana can pay for it all by itself. So smoke up for our future. Stop most payouts around the world, no giving to both sides. 45-50% tax on 100k+ (whatever the optimal number (i've seen the chart/don't remember) is until we get back in AAA credit shape) then bring it bck down. Remove all loopholes: Income is Income no matter the sources. **There, that should balance the budget in probably 4 years.. then we can do Cradle to Grave health/education with something paying for it. Win/Win! Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget. Compared to other countries, we're very very low. And we get a lot in return for what we do invest. It stems the spread of disease (eradication of smallpox was a major success achieved through foreign aid), helps create jobs that keep people from immigrating here, help promote new democracies. Without it, you get global negative results. You want to win the hearts and minds of people in third world countries and keep them from turning into the next generation of Yemeni AQ? Spend a little money to feed, educate and vaccinate children. Win hearts and minds early. Cutting that out gives virtually no benefit to deficit reduction. Plus, there's something to be said for a little compassion and morality, even if it does contributed (a tiny bit) to the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 1. Implement a means testing system in Social Security, elimininating the top 10 percent from the system. I would raise the Social Security tax on the top 5 percent. 2. Raise the estate tax. 3. Return the Income Tax to Clinton Era levels. 4. Implement a 5 to 7 percent reduction in the federal work force over the next X number of years - to be done through attrition and retirement. 5. Return the defense budegt to some arbitrary point in the mid 90s where the numbers made sense. 6. Institute a .25 percent VAT as an experiment. 7. Push for a single payer healthcare system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Curb the cost of drugs in this country, why the hell are drugs so medical drugs so expensive in this country? how about the government negotiate for better drug prices? Why does the same asthma inhaler cost double here than other parts of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 1. Implement a means testing system in Social Security' date=' elimininating the top 10 percent from the system. I would raise the Social Security tax on the top 5 percent.2. Raise the estate tax. 3. Return the Income Tax to Clinton Era levels. 4. Implement a 5 to 7 percent reduction in the federal work force over the next X number of years - to be done through attrition and retirement. 5. Return the defense budegt to some arbitrary point in the mid 90s where the numbers made sense. 6. Institute a .25 percent VAT as an experiment. 7. Push for a single payer healthcare system.[/quote'] By going single payer with more price controls you could probably cut the medicare/ medicaid portion by 3 to 5 percent If you cut the military also by 5 percent and then pay down the debt you after the debt is paid off you can either cut taxes or invest that money in the populace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 1. Implement a means testing system in Social Security' date=' elimininating the top 10 percent from the system. I would raise the Social Security tax on the top 5 percent.[/quote'] So you are going to both eliminate social security for upper incomes, and also make them pay more taxes for their non-existent social security? Seems a bit draconian (and I am usually in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Every time I play this game I come away with something like 20% to 30% of the shortfall being made up in tax increases with the other 70% to 80% of the shortfall made up in spending cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Make everyone on welfare and food stamps take a drug test.If they fail, they don't qualify for aid. That'll cut roughly 65% of spending on those programs. End the school lunch program. You're at school to learn, not eat on my dime.:evilg: Tax Sarah Palin for every stupid remark she makes. We're talking billions in additional income there. Legalize marijuana and tax it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I am open to a lot of ideas, including turning SS from an insurance program into a welfare program. Although I would get, screwed in the deal, I think it is an idea that should be explored. However, I am surprised at the number of people that think that “the rich” control the government, and “the rich” should not get social security. As of now, SS is obviously the third rail of politics. However, the less fair or available you make it… the more likely it becomes just another welfare program to be cut when times are tough. Be careful what you wish for… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I'm moderate damn it and proud of it. Taxes I would have the poverty level at below 15,000. Tax rates would then kick in at 5% for incomes of 15,000 to 50,000. 25% from 50,001 to 500,000. 50% for everyone above 500,000. I would have corporate taxes at 15% and 30%. Estate tax at 25%. Cap gain taxes at 20%. As long as we have a debt, I would have a national sales tax like the states have of 5%. Once the debt is gone, I would then restructure the tax code again and maybe include a VAT tax. To me the debt is too damn high and taxes have to be part of the equation. The only deduction will be for home mortgage payments or for those without homes, rent payments. Social Security Raised the withholding rate to 8% and eliminate the cap. If you are going to let rich people dip into the system, then all their income is subject to social security taxes. The SS funds will be in a LOCKBOX where noone can touch it. Retirement age will be raised to 69. People are living longer, so raise it. Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare I would merge all those into one program- Americare. I would spell out exactly who will be eligible for Americare. To pay for it. A withholding tax of 5% and A surtax of all for profit hospitals and a surtax on all insurance companies. I would make health insurance available across state lines, the more competition should help reduce rates. I don't believe in single payer but I do believe in addition to private insurance there should be a public insurance plan. Spending I would reduce spending 10% across the board. I would merge/eliminate some departments. We don't need all those departments. I would bring our troops home and repeal whatever law that is that prevents us from having troops along the border. Any war we fight declared or not, there is automatically a tax withholding of predetermine rate to pay for this war. ---------- Post added April-9th-2011 at 03:54 PM ---------- Really radical- institute a mandatory death age of say 70. You know like that movie Logan's Run. Save alot of money there.:evilg::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I think cutting military spending, ending corporate welfare (oil and big agro subsidies, in particular), create a single-payer health care system, allowing the top-tier Bush tax cuts to expire, streamlining some federal agencies, enforcing the current tax code (in particular for corporations), and eliminating identifiably wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary programs is a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 So you are going to both eliminate social security for upper incomes, and also make them pay more taxes for their non-existent social security? Seems a bit draconian (and I am usually in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy). Look, my other suggestion would be raising the highest tax rate to 65 percent. I'm done ****ing around with these SOBs. (Why is c-sucker not edited? That was a shock). We are ****ed as a country because we spend more time worry about the upper 5 percent than the lower 95 percent. God bless Republicans, because they've convinced some Baptist managing a Tastee Freeze for $28K a year that it's immoral to raise taxes on a ****ing millionaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Look' date=' my other suggestion would be raising the highest tax rate to 65 percent. I'm done ****ing around with these SOBs. (Why is c-sucker not edited? That was a shock).We are ****ed as a country because we spend more time worry about the upper 5 percent than the lower 95 percent. God bless Republicans, because they've convinced some Baptist managing a Tastee Freeze for $28K a year that it's immoral to raise taxes on a ****ing millionaire.[/quote'] Oh so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 However, I am surprised at the number of people that think that “the rich” control the government, and “the rich” should not get social security. Who does control government then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Who does control government then? As Newt Gingrich would say, secular Islamic radicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.