Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[Brain357]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

How do you phase out SS? Some people pay and collect no benefits?

 

[Centinel]

The government is currently paying off bonds as they mature so there are no new action items there... So your proposition is to issue less bonds, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Reduce the number of bonds issued over time until bonds are not necessary to fund the operations of the US government.

I'm not seeing the benefit to that as T bonds are one of the most stable investments and represent a sig proportion of most people's portfolios.

The government doesn't exist to provide people with investment options.

I've seen you mention that the other part of your solution would be to cut taxes by 35% and eliminate SS and Medicare. So now you have less revenue and a bunch of broke seniors who can't pay their medical bills.... I just can't follow your logic. It feels like you are just stating hot talking points and not really thinking through the application and impact. Care to better explain?

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Is your goal to reduce the debt for the sake of reducing the debt because you fear that we are close to defaulting or are you trying to make an impact to positively effect our economy? This is a very important question because the ends should justify the means. If in the process of eliminating the debt you end up destroying the economy then it is not an effective path. If smart deficit spending boosts the economy and puts us on a path towards prosperity then that can end up reducing our debt as well as strengthening the economy. There are too many factors that need to be considered to simply state that we need to pay off our debt. There are many many why's and what if's that need to be analyzed.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

Yeah, explain how that works...

Here's how it works: the government consistently pays off more bonds than it issues.

The interest on bond is paid by crediting accounts. The money comes from nowhere, in all reality.

The money comes from checks drawn on the US Treasury

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it. The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

Yes it is a pay as you go system. Their money went for someone else's retirement. And being a pay as you go, there will be money as long as people are working. Benefits might have to go down based on worker/retired ratio, but it will always be there.

No. There will be money as long as voters are willing to be taxed. There is a huge difference.

Today workers lose money on the arrangement. Today nearly 55% of voting aged Americans expect to retire after benefits 'go down' even more. We don't even know how they will 'go down'.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

 

[Brain357]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

 

[Brain357]

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it. The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

Yes it is a pay as you go system. Their money went for someone else's retirement. And being a pay as you go, there will be money as long as people are working. Benefits might have to go down based on worker/retired ratio, but it will always be there.

No. There will be money as long as voters are willing to be taxed. There is a huge difference.

Today workers lose money on the arrangement. Today nearly 55% of voting aged Americans expect to retire after benefits 'go down' even more. We don't even know how they will 'go down'.

Who is going to stop paying? And is that an option? If I stop paying it cheats someone who paid in full and I would get nothing.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

 

[Brain357]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

 

[g5000]

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.



Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.


No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You think you can just take because you think they don't NEED it?!?!

That's as evil as it gets.

 

[Brain357]

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Here is the dirty little secret, no one gives a damn about the budget. The only time the DNC seems to care about the budget is when it comes to military spending. Whenever the GOP seems to care about the budget, it comes when they talk about the Nanny state. However, in the end both vote for both and laugh at those who defend either party to the death.

As Dick Cheney once said, deficits no longer matter

 

[Campbell]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!


The Republicans never have seen a tax cut for corporations and the rich they didn't like but never have quit spending for their pet projects and war machine.

These figures came from the bureau of the debt....they're easily verified:


................................................................Total U S Debt................................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32(Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

What those pie charts never show is how much is spent every year on tax expenditures, and that's the biggest expenditure in the budget!

$1.2 trillion. That's how much we give away to special interests every year in the form of deductions, credits, and exemptions. It's a massive anti-free market wealth transfer scheme up the food chain, legislatively concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It is also a massive government behavioral modification program.

Behavioral control. If you don't buy a house, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't have kids, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes. If you don't buy the right kind of energy, you are punished with higher taxes. It was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.



So...you can balance the budget just by banning all tax expenditures. This would actually provide America with an $800 billion surplus. A surplus which could be used to lower EVERYONE's tax rates AND pay down the debt. Then, once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even further.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

Yeah, and it is getting closer and closer to 2:1.

When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of our population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of our population was over 65.

Today, 14% of our population is over 65.

As life expectancy increases, a larger and larger percentage of our population is on SS/Medicare, while a smaller a smaller and smaller percentage is supporting them.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

No, we raise the eligibility age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

No we are not living decades longer than our ancestors. The life expectancy of a retiree in 1935 was 13ish years. The projected life expectancy of a retiree in 2050 is about 20.5 after the adjustment to a higher retirement age. We generally are living 18 days longer per co-hort at this point. Increasing retirement age to is no different than giving benefit reductions of 18%. Let's be honest about what we are doing. We are just hiding benefit cuts in a higher retirement age that is surrounded by phony logic.

 

[Siete]

How fast are you will to raise the age to 70. Immediately - great you are 50% of the way to kicking the can. The SSA says that we are living 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that with last increase in retirement age pretty much explains all of the increase through about 2050. That retiree will work 2 years longer to get .5 years of longer benefits over a retiree of 2005.

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You think you can just take because you think they don't NEED it?!?!

That's as evil as it gets.

paying for wars and bail outs with other peoples money then telling them the system is broke is pretty damn evil IMO ..

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!

Not to be a fact monster, but where does the 50% come from anyway. Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes. He raised 11 different taxes. If you are talking about the 1986 tax reform, it was as a much Bill Bradley as anyone and it was projected to be revenue neutral. Reagan reduced personal income tax rates on those who made a lot of money - but no one paid those rates anyway. That is why we created the alternative minimum tax in 1969.

 

[g5000]

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

Then Gates shouldn't have to pay into SS.

 

[g5000]

Here is the dirty little secret, no one gives a damn about the budget. The only time the DNC seems to care about the budget is when it comes to military spending. Whenever the GOP seems to care about the budget, it comes when they talk about the Nanny state. However, in the end both vote for both and laugh at those who defend either party to the death.

Yep.

 

[g5000]

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You think you can just take because you think they don't NEED it?!?!

That's as evil as it gets.

paying for wars and bail outs with other peoples money then telling them the system is broke is pretty damn evil IMO ..

I'm totally against federal bailouts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

So how much debt is too much?