Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[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!!

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.

I don't think you quite know what you're talking about:

......................................................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
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.

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.

I don't think you quite know what you're talking about:

......................................................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
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

You are talking about marginal tax rates which is almost irrelevant to the discussion here. You need to look at effective tax rate, that includes the number of deductions. It needs to factor in the corporate tax rate which is where people 'earn' money when the personal tax rate is 90%.

Interesting commentary coming from a left wing thinktank :

"In short, the hero of the budget surplus story was the stock bubble, not President Clinton's tax cuts and budget restraint. This is important not only in dishing out praise for the surplus, it is also essential to a proper understanding of the economy. "

The Stock Bubble Created the Budget Surplus: Not Bill Clinton's Tax and Spending Policies

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A balanced budget is never going to happen regardless of who becomes President anytime in the foreseeable future.
Wall Street and the super elite use our tax dollars as bank roll by the $Billions per WEEK.
This is not going to change.

 

[Centinel]

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.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

 

[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.

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

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

 

[Centinel]

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.

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.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

 

[Brain357]

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

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

 

[Centinel]

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

 

[Brain357]

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

 

[Centinel]

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

 

[Brain357]

Without cutting a single dime of spending, if we simply raised the SS and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and banned all tax expenditures, we would have a nearly $900 billion annual surplus.

Imagine that!

We could cut taxes AND pay down the debt with that. And we would no longer have the insane system where two entities earning identical incomes pay wildly different amounts of tax.

What do you expect people to do between 65 and 70? Many are pushed out of jobs before getting to 65.

 

[Brain357]

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.

You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.

And again if we did that it would be a disaster.

 

[Centinel]

Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.

You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.

And again if we did that it would be a disaster.

It could be structured as follows:

Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.

Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.

The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.

This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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.

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.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Savings and a pension which is insurance are two different things. If they weren't we would all have personal auto-wreck accounts. Insurance manages risk. Savings profits from taking risk. They go together like bacon and eggs. Replacing SS with savings is like replacing the eggs with sausage.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

That would have been sound advice for Social Security ... in 1940.

Was it in a hole in 1940?

According to AJ Altmeyer who ran the Social Security Board. He testified before Congress multiple times about the impact of underfunding Social Security. This is an article that I wrote on Altmeyer's testimony from 1944. It is a summary. The article contains a link to the actual testimony which isn't as bad as it sounds. It is pretty straight forward.

Predicting Social Security’s Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

"One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus.

Voters today should pay close attention to it not only because his predictions came true with stunning accuracy, but more importantly it offers a different prospective on the system’s financial imbalances."

If you don't have an SS tax revenue, you can't pay benefits

Why not?

Social Security is not welfare. It is a financial system which draws in revenue on a defined basis and pays benefits on a defined basis. The government is the Trustee, not a guarantor of the system. The revenue collected today is used to pay the benefits due today. The Trust Fund by itself would be exhausted in about 3 years. After that, no revenue there is no benefits.

Maybe they will change current law. I doubt it. If taxpayers are unwilling to increase payroll tax revenue I see no reason to believe that they will be willing to raise a tax of a different name for the same purpose.

 

[Brain357]

So you have no real basis for your claim? You don't think all the false claims of SS not being there is inspiration? Most people think now they can't count on it, yet they save very little.

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.

You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.

And again if we did that it would be a disaster.

It could be structured as follows:

Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.

Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.

The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.

This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.

The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?

 

[Brain357]

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

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.

Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?

Why do you think that?

One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts

Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.

Savings and a pension which is insurance are two different things. If they weren't we would all have personal auto-wreck accounts. Insurance manages risk. Savings profits from taking risk. They go together like bacon and eggs. Replacing SS with savings is like replacing the eggs with sausage.

You have evidence people are good at preparing for their own retirement?

 

[Centinel]

If they can't count on social security and they're also not saving, it sounds like they're screwed.

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.

You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.

And again if we did that it would be a disaster.

It could be structured as follows:

Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.

Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.

The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.

This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.

The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?

Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.

But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.

 

[Brain357]

Yes they would be if we got rid of SS. That is my point.

We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.

I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.

You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.

And again if we did that it would be a disaster.

It could be structured as follows:

Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.

Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.

The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.

This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.

The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?

Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.

But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.

How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.

 

[hangover]

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

The last time we had a balanced budget, Shrub destroyed it in his first six months as POTUS, by giving $3 trillion in tax cut welfare to millionaires.

Notice, none of the con candidates are talking balanced budgets. That's because they all plan to double the national debt again with WWIII, invading Iran and Iraq again.
So they talk about small hands, small dicks, sleazy wives, anything but the issues.