In the past week Trump and Huchabee have removed themselves from the Republican presidential run. Gingrich and Romney have both, due to poor performances, significantly hampered their future campaigning.
That leaves us with announced candidates: Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Rick Santorum.
And unannouced candidates: Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels. and several others that are possible draftees.
Who do you think will be the 2012 Republican Candidate for presdent? You need not select from the provided list, as I think the candidate may still be drafted.
For pure entertainment value Newt has been hard to beat save possibly The Donald. Senator Man on Dog will be fun while he lasts but I fear his time will be short. For the greatest potential laughs I note the insane W era diplomat John Bolton is planning a trip to New Hampshire soon. Between the lunatic advocacy on an Iranian first strike and that hideous mustache he could be a comic book.
FWIW I think it should be noted that as poorly as Newt’s campaign has started out, he got himself in trouble for saying something that is as uncharacteristic for him as it is true. Ryan’s plan is in fact wildly unpopular and extremist, not to mention fiscally ludicrous. (as one commenter put it, the asterisks have asterisks)
Reasonable Republicans (the ones left) should be a bit bothered by this I would think.
“Looking at Social Security, we see spending rising from 4.8 percent of gross domestic product to 6.2 percent by 2035, an increase of 1.4 percentage points.”
“Another way to think about it is that the long term Social Security deficit is 1.2 percent of G.D.P., or 3.6 percent of taxable payrolls.”
“Thus we could raise the Social Security tax rate from 12.4 percent, which it has been for the last few years, to 16 percent immediately and forever, or we can assume general revenue financing for the unfunded liability and would have to increase federal income taxes from 6.2 percent of G.D.P. to 7.4 percent, about a 30 percent increase in the amount of income tax revenues the government needs to collect.” ************ I’ve always said that if the so-called trust fund peters out (it wont; a 5-year fund needs to be maintained to cover temporary payroll tax shortfalls; happened before) the same tax payer money that was cashing bonds with income tax to feed retirees will simply switch to a higher payroll tax (with accompanying drop in income tax). Instead of 75% payroll tax and 25% income tax, retirees will be paid through 100% payroll tax — only difference, a bit less progressive.
The only practical effects of the trust fund as far as I can see is that it allowed politicians to set on payroll tax rate for 60 years so they would not have to face endless raises and tax payer wrath which payroll tax surpluses on the front (when average income was lowest) made overall taxes more regressive (capped, flat tax paying for on-budget outlays) and more progressive on the end.
Average income doubles twice as fast as population (over 40 years compared to 80 — worker-to-population ratio stabilizes after 2050) so there never was any retiree revenue crisis. If there is any funding problem it is cause by the average worker’s (median) income growth not keeping even close pace with overall income.
For instance, my Social Security payments are supposedly calculated factoring in income growth. But my 1968 income is not credited as double my $25,000 to $50,000. I get credited for only $33,000 because the formula uses average persons’ wages instead of overall growth. In the unbalanced US labor market median income only grew 20% as average income doubled! The minimum wage actually halved by early 2007!! Get the American labor market back in balance and payroll taxes will overflow.
************ ************ AGAIN — ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF NORMAL ECONOMIC GROWTH:
“Part A pays for hospital visits and is financed by the Medicare portion of the payroll tax, which is 2.9 percent. […]
If the congress did a bit more questioning “requirements”.
Aviation Week today reports a rare bit of lucid thinking in the congress:
“Lawmakers are taking aim at the U.S. Air Force’s effort to buy aircraft to train foreign militaries, known as the Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program, due to concerns about its legality and the Pentagon’s “disjointed approach” to buying the aircraft.”
Training foreign militaries is such a good way to build deficits! But that is not the issue with the house armed servcie cmte.
“In its version of the defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee doesn’t zero out funding for the program, but it does rap the Pentagon on the knuckles for failing to deliver a validated requirement. The bill, which still must be passed by the full House and the Senate, would block funding to start such a program until the Joint Requirements Oversight Council signs off on a requirement and the Pentagon’s top acquisition official approves an acquisition strategy.”
Unfortunately, the JROC is a rubber stamp……………………….
Us reasonable Reps ARE botherd by the above list. I also agree with you that Newt and Donald have and are providiing some excellent entertainment until the y fo away (finally). Don’t know what Santorum has done lately and I really don’t want to know or care. As a Pres asperant he’s road kill before the cars even line up to start. And Boltan (?!?!) you got to be bagging me….
The only thing that will save Obama is the fact the challengers are all week or unknown (but Clinton was unknown at this time in 1990 I think).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/us/16nursing.html?_r=2&ref=us This link is to an article about nursing home operators’ attempts to exempte themselves from the employer coverage provisions for minimum or low wage direct care employees working in nursing homes. This is another large group of workers who could benefit greatly from union representation. NancyO
Dean Baker explains why SS opposition is a fact free discipline: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/why-do-opponents-of-social-security-have-so-much-difficulty-getting-their-facts-right
The obvious answer is because it doesn’t matter. Those pushing for cuts in Social Security and the other big items on the right’s agenda can get the basic facts about Social Security, the budget and the economy wrong over and over again and it doesn’t in any way affect their standing in the public debate on these issues. One need only look at the career of former Senator Alan Simpson, who has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t have the most basic understanding of the finances of the Social Security system, yet is still seen as a respected voice on this topic.”
Seems to me the solution of who to run for P.O.T.U.S. on the Right side, is. . . . “O” as he has shown he’s more right thinking than left. Considering he has done more for the rwpublican side than the democratic one, a new trend can be started, a “Democan or Republcrat”, or any variation of the two.
NanO, the path to a banana republic is not due to Congressional actions but due to dictator-like actions by the president. Your article recommends that theat trend be expanded so that the president ignores Congress, the constitution, and eventually the courts. And, folks of your understanding of “good” think it is the “righ”t thing to do.
Understand why there is such a strong anti-government group, the Tea Party, forming? For them leftist views are so anti-american to ignore our history, and causes great concern. And, you and yours continue to blame the conservatives? That’s scary denialism.
NanO, the path to a banana republic is not due to Congressional actions but due to dictator-like actions by the president. Your article recommends that the president ignores Congress, the constitution, eventually the courts and the people’s will.
Understand why there is such a strong anti-government group, the Tea Party, forming? For them leftist views are so anti-american to ignore our history, and causes great concern. And, you and yours continue to blame the conservatives? That’s scary denialism.
Whom in congress is responsible for setting up the US for insolvency?
You say: “due to dictator-like actions by the president.”
Intriguing, please put up a list of acts. Which president?
Here is the hard question, what were ‘them in congress’ thinking (I used to ask my kids this when they were 4 years old) when ‘them in congress’ passed the appropriations, and knew they were going to let the country go to insolvency?
“Whom in Congress?” You mean, “Who in….”. of course. But, every Congress from 1994 to 2006 was Republican. And with the exception of only a few years, the Senate had a Republican majority as well. So, I’d have to say that the R’s had the power of the purse A Democratic president did concur in those budgets, but the budgets were a creation of the Congress and the Congress alone. I’m sure you know the history of the Debt Limit statute, so I won’t lecture you. However, may I say that the debt service we are obligated to pay resulted from the decisions of past Congresses, not this President.
Co-Rev, the President isn’t threatening to veto the debt limit extension. The Congress is threatening to withold action on it. And, as to the suggestion to keep on going and ignore the debt limit, the idea is that the Congress does not have the power to cause the credit of the US to go into default, debt limit or no debt limit. The 14th Amendment covers that issue in section 4(IIRC). So…..Cheer up. Meanwhile, chill out on the rhetoric. Too well Tea Party-esque. Not like your batter writing. 🙂 Whaddaya
NanO, Article I, Section 7, Clause 7.1 “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Ignoring the “Debt Ceiling” would at the very least conflict with the clause, and the separation clauses. Going forward with your recommendation, ignoring the debt ceiling restriction, would be immediate grounds for impeachment.
Furthermore, the current plan of selling treasuries from the Federal employee trust fund, set a precedence that opens other “Trust Fund” sources for redemption. Think redeeming the “other” big trust fund would start impeachment?
Finally, the House Budget had a long list of targeted programs for cuts/elimination. Take a look at the next message and determine which of those programs are more sacrosanct than that “other BIG” trust fund?
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.Save America ‘s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings. Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings. Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annualsavings.Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings. Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings. Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings. Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings. CutFederal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual […]
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!******Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees.$1.2 billion savings over ten years.Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savingsEliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings. USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings. Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings. Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings. Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.. HUD Ph.D. Program. Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. TOTAL […]
It’s not just the list. New Gingrich is toast (already!) because he dared to say what most people believe to be true about Paul Ryan’s delusional “budget”. Who will be sacrificed next on the altar of unpleasant truths? Huntsman? Pawlenty? If you can be marginalized by being too honest about the GOP less realistic ideas who can survive?
Rick Perry hasn’t veered too close to honesty since he’s been governor of TX. Maybe he has more of a shot at this than I think.
Passed the House, but not the Senate. Existing law rules, CoRev! And, the House has been warned that other Trust Funds could be invaded. As a matter of fact, they were before in 1995. Remember? Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed. Anyhow, the origination of the budget per Article I, Section 7, is not at issue. The question is, “Does the Congress have the power to force the Treasury to default?” I argue it doesn’t. Poooh! So there, CoRev. NancyO
Either way if they keep up the brinksmanship and ignore the lobbying of Wall Street, the Chamber and the historical example of saint Ronnie the tv pitchman it’s going to be one hell of a show.
NanO, default? How? That would go against your Amendment 14. Another reason to call for impeachment. Wazzamatta, U?
BTW, there’s plenty of revenue to pay off our debts/needs. There’s just not enough to cover all of our wishes/wants. Worse, you can’t get there on just tax raises, but neither party wants to admit it to keep its supporters from rebelling.
CoRev–Of course, tax increases won’t resolve budget deficits and the resulting debt. However, why is it always SS and Medicare that are the enemies of balanced budgets when we have two wars going and something that can become a war cooking away at the same time. It will take many years to pay down the debt. MOre to the point, at the rate we’re going now, it will take centuries to build up the economy. Ilsm keeps saying and it always is true that you can’w have a healthy economy, a strong labor market, and a thriving industrial base at the same time you’re throwing money down the tube in wars and “defense.” Defense against what? Oy!
If we keep going the way we are now, we’re gonna end up like Boris and Natasha sitting on the curb, when Natasha said, “Lets face it, Boris. Ve never catch Moose and Sqvirrel!” NancyO
NsanO asks: “ However, why is it always SS and Medicare that are the enemies of balanced budgets when we have two wars going and something that can become a war cooking away at the same time.”
The simple answer is because they make up the majority of the budget! Cutting all the DoD spending still leaves us with ~ $.8-.9T in deficits. So, why is it always Defense spending that must be cut?
Did you go through the list I provided? Any sacrosanct, or should we just cut all? Can you answer why some of them are even in the budget?
Nancy everyone assumes that Obama cannot instruct Geithner to continue to borrow, but can instruct him to make payments that he wants to make and not others required by law. (How many defense contractors are owed money in Boehner’s congressional district? Are any Medicare payments owed within Ryan’s district? hehe) If Congress forces the President to break one law or break another, SCOTUS presumably would try to stay away from what it would view as a political dispute between the other two branches of government. Obama’s challenge would be to break a law that will not lead to or add much fuel to impeachment hearings by the GOP House. Yup, I’ve been wondering if that circus might come back.
PJR, Obama can’t afford to seem even more politically motivated than he already appears. What’s better breaking laws to fail to pay some debts, or cashing in the TFs (all of them)? That’s puts all future payments out of them from actual revenues (0n budget.)
“The simple answer is because they (social secuity and medicare) make up the majority of the budget!” Coev
You know full well that that is not at all true. Social Security is nt even a part of the general budget let alone a contributor to the deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund is one of many creditors of the USofA. Stop lying about the specifics of he general budget. Creditors are not responsible for the deficiencies of their clients. The military adventurism of the past ten years is the major contributor to the current budget deficit. The tax cuts and continuation thereof is the other major contributor to the budget deficit. Try the truth for a change my friend. I for one am getting tired of your inclination to bend the facts. Yes, money was borowed from the SS Trust Fund and used fo general budget spending. Borrowed is th key word and the fact of the matter is demonstrated by the issuance by the Treasury of those Special Treasury notes which are held by he Trust Fund and account for the money due back from the general budget to the Social Security program. No different from any other creditor. The money was borrowed and i has to be paid back and the books need to be balanced and kept legitimate.
For crying out loud, CoRev. The POTUS is a politician. It is not a criticism to say he is. Now, the President and Sec. Treasury have different duties. The deal is that if the Congress wishes to impeach a President, they can. Please. This guy is at least as competent as GWB. Side bar arguments to the contrary, and you know, future payments don’t change underlying law. Too late for this stuff, CoRev. Tomorrow. Maybe. NancyO
Jack, perhaps you missed this little piece of history from NanO’s earlier comment: in the 1995 debt ceiling battle “Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed.”
The rest of your comment is not even worth responding.
Go to page 1: You will see that in 2010, DoD awarded 161,000 million bucks for commercial services contractors to sit aropund places like Restion, up from 67,000 millions of bucks in 2000. What is DoD getting? Waste.
Then go to Page 4 and you will see that Sec Gates is “not convinced” the wasted contractor equivalents are worth being replaced by federal employees in properly ranked and rated slots. Gates is correct, but cannot be too blunt, he would be like me.
Having been one of those worthless contractors and having managed them for years. Gates is correct at least 300,000 of those worthless contractors can be let go and their wasteful slots discharged too.
At the bottom of page 5 CSIS observes there are “personal services” going on, you bet there are a lot and it is anti deficient as there is no authority in DoD to have personal services! As a former CO you likely know the FAR. Part 37 covers this stuff.
Finally, go back to the footnote in page 2, CSIS does not go into the amount of governmental functions done by contractors because such would add to reporting the fraud involved. In many government program offices the support contractors are the only specialists and not doing the taxpayer protection falls on those FOXES!
CSIS does link to a GAO 06- 838R which tells congress how the DoD is being ripped off.
Your list of cuts to humane programs is a drop in this waste pool.
Newt on NPr this morning: “I’m still here!” (Paraphrased)
Despite a near universal belief his campaign is effectively over including many GOPers he has vowed to fight on in Iowa. The daily show writers probably can’t believe their good fortune.
Ah hah, CoRev! Turned out the SS TF’s “worthless IOU’s” weren’t so worthless after all. The Sec of the Treasury is a Trustee of SS, and is the custodian of the bonds. So, he and the the other Trustees agreed to allow the Treasury to use the money represented by the bonds in exchange for interest on the borrowed amount when reimbursed. Not cashable outside the government, but cashable inside the govt so it appears they are a real asset, not a bogus “unsustainable promise.” Careful, next time you’ll actually admit the TF must be honored and that would be the end of the world as you know it. heh heh 😀 NancyO
AS, as a Newt supporter, I agree with your analysis. My own view is he is toast, with the barest of chances of rehabilitating to his prior lower ranking position. i also beleive he is capable of being tha VP candidate for one of the less accomplished, if s/he should win the nomination. Why not? Dems nominated an even worse Biden for VP.
BTW, if they do choose to redeem those SSTF treasuries and spend the proceeds on the general budget (twice at that time), what do you think of the that ole, newly minted, perpetual spending machine. Put in $1 into the SSTF and spend it endlessly, until we reach the $XT mark or economic collpase happens.
Actually, if they use the SSTF treasuries, that should finally put the end to the lie of redeemeing them via borrowing won’t/doesn’t add to the deficit.
Well, CoRev, instead of borrowing to redeem the TF we could simply use tax revenue. Which would not necessarily add to debt. In fact, we would be paying down intragovt debt and reducing the total debt. Now, as ilsm and I keep saying, wars cost too much. Old people don’t even eat a lot and are quite cheap in comparison to weapons systems designed to kill incoming ICBM missles. Look at it this way, keeping SS going is cheaper than two wars running at once and endless weapons systems that don’t work. As between the two, I’ll take the old people.
Why? Well, last I looked, you and me are old people, right? I vote for myself, you vote for yourself, and the first thing you know we’ll have a nice, secure retirement system. TaTa! NancyO
i think you mean well, but your facts are … uh… homemade?
the raise in the payroll tax to about 16% combined, can take place at the rate of one half of one tenth of one percent per year, while wages are rising at a rate of over one full percent per year.
general revenue financing would change SS from an insurance program for workers paid for by the workers themselves to a welfare program. a really really bad idea. even if some liberals think its great.
1.2/6.2 is not 30%
are federal income taxes really 6.2% of GDP?
the Trust Fund “normally” maintains a one year reserve, not five.
the “practical effect” of the trust fund is that it smoothes out collections so some accounting sanity can be maintained while pay as you go does its magic. the long running super trust fund enabled the baby boomers to pay a more “generationally fair” tax for their eventual benefits, but the idea is completely lost in all the lies and pathetic replies. the government was going to borrow that money anyway, and would have to pay it back anyway. and pretending that getting the money from taxes is some kind of flim flam or unfair burden on the taxpayer is… more lies.
SS is wage indexed because the taxes are collected from wages, and wage indexing is the best measure of “growth plus inflation”. if wages are not keeping up with growth, SS IS keeping up with wages. and that’s the best we can do. if wages need to be raised, that’s a whole separate problem. don’t ask SS to solve it. that’s not what it’s for.
the worker to retiree population stabilizes about 2050… yes… but it’s at a level that would require that extra 4% combined SS tax.. which the workers get back when they retire. because the worker to retiree ratio is ultimately determined by the ratio of working years to retirement years for the average worker… and whatever they think now the workers are not going to want to retire any later even if they are going to live longer. AND they can pay for the longer retirement… something people have always wanted to do with their money is RETIRE young enough to enjoy it.
Medicare is a whole different deal. medical care needs to be made more cost effective… as is done in the rest of the civilized world. But in any case if we are going to want the medical care, we are going to have to pay for it. And while that would cost an extra 1% of GDP the way things are going (not sure where you got this number, but it’s as close as any other reasonable guess) that GDP is going to be so much larger that even after we have paid for our more expensive medical care we will have twice as much money left for the other things we want.
one of the Big Lies is maintained by carnival arithmetic… we are told to focus on the percent increase in Medicare costs, and ignore the fact that we can afford it, and paying for a longer and healthier life might be one of the best things we can do with our extra money.
everybody is invited to think oh my god they are going to take 30% of my income… and quickly… very quickly… guess how they are going to live on 70% of what they have today. instead, even if they do take 30% of your income to pay for your retirement and medical care, your income will be 200% of what it is today… so think: if i make a thousand a week today and pay 15% for retirement and old age medical care, that leaves me with 850 dollars per week to spend today. In fifity years, those people will be making 2000 per week (real dollars) and paying 30% for retirement and old age medical care (they will be living longer than we are) and that will leave them… 1400 dollars per week to live on.
without reading eskow, i can say that the “choice between the middle class and the wealthy” is not a good way to think about it. the workers can pay for their own retirement and medical care. they don’t need to get the rich to pay for it.
that doesn’t mean the rich don’t need to pay a reasonable share for running the country, which they currently do not. just to day that a normal part of living should not be paid for by welfare.
let us remember that those old people paid for their benefits.
as for CoRev, it’s hard enough to put up with his “arguments” but when he starts accusing people of lying because their truth hurts his psychotic “understanding,” i think it’s time to pour a bucket of cold water on his head.
borrowing from peter to repay the money you borrowed from paul does not add to your deficit. it merely shifts who you owe the money to.
and in any case paying back the money you borrowed from SS is not “paying for SS twice” it is paying, for the first time, for whatever you used the borrowed money for.
the double talk of the Big Liars has confused co-rev… as it was intended to do.
again, i insist, the old people don’t need fromthe corporatists federal trough. they pay for Social Security themselves. I know you mean that the corporatists want to thow the old people’s money into their trough, but we need to be clear which direction the charity is going in.
the current Big Lie is that “paying back the Trust Fund adds to the deficit.”
lets, see, the current old paid for their social security. the money was put in trust and lent to The United States of America. But the only way The United States of America can pay back the now old people is to borrow the money from someone else. Therefore, The United States of America shouldn’t have to pay back the money they borrowed from the old people.”
Yes, this is what passes for Conventional Wisdom in washington, and the media, and the highly paid but non partizan experts. And CoRev.
“”Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed.” CoRev quoting Nancy out of context.
And that’s your answer to my pointing out the deceptive nature of your argument? Are you serious? I had been thinking that most of your comments are the result of ideologically motivated deception. No, I now understand that you don’t even begin to understand the issue, especially regarding the Social Security system and financial interaction in general. And I love your general approach to debate. “The rest of your comment is not even worth responding [to].” Is that because most of your responses have no real value? Your tendency toward ideological screed is tiresome and adds no value to these discussions. Your “facts” are little more than the talking points of the Social Security deception industry.
Unfortunately….the next President of the United States is Barack Obama. I wish it weren’t so, but America is stupid to get rid of him, and with the help of the corrupt state owned media, and especially propoganda sites like this one, he is going to be a shoe-in.
On a more realistic note, any country dumb enough to have put Obama in power deserves exactly what they get!
Please illuminate the conversation for us so we may understand exactly what the teabaggers and the Repubs bring to the table which will help Main Street? I m all ears.
Please illuminate the conversation for us so we may understand exactly what the teabaggers and the Repubs bring to the table which will help Main Street? I m all ears.
The tea partiers and the Repubs have the thankless job of saving the country from financial ruin by CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING. You don’t believe me, then listen to the CBO:
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.
FYI, the upper line is the “do nothing” strategy. OK, you libs want to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses to _______% (fill in the blank) to cut the deficit. Fine, fill in the blank with the amount necessary to alter the course, and watch capital flee the US, which already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Sammy, logic can not be used to counter an argument based almost solely on emotion. How many arguments use the kids, the elderly, some animal/plant, and the the planet, when we pull back the covers from what the useful idiots spout it is always about control., their control over everyone else’s life.
Martin, I’m referencing the Social Security legislation, as described on the SS Administration web site. I’ve also noted several times recently that that same web site makes it clear that current legislation separates the general budget from that of the SS budget. Social Security is creditor to the Treasury, as required by that same SS legislation. What truth do you know that evades the rest of us who focus more on the facts rather than some convenient truthiness.
Sammy Cut the budget? What part of a Republican plan does anything like that? It cuts social spending and it cuts tax revenue yet again. Stop being an ideologue. Cutting the deficit is no more difficult than cutting military spending and putting the tax rates back to the year 2000. Argue otherwise all that you like, it isn’t any mystery. Wars of adventure for he past ten years together with too much tax advantage for the wealthiest Americans have left the Treasury short on cash. The fix is easy. The intentions not to do so are mysterious.
Jack, stop being an ideologue. You have yet to do the simplest math to show how good/bad is your proposed solution. Your solution has to get us to a balanced budget in some time frame. Let’s start with the CBO deficit projection of $1.5T to $1.7T for 2011. I’ll even provide some of your numbers for you to gat started.
The Bush tax cuts ~$272.3B* for 2011. The 2% FICA cut is projected at ~$112B for 2011. Cost of wars ~$100B for 2011.
* Oops! the bulk ($232B) of those revenue gains come from those making under $250K/Yr
Good job, liberals. Your approach still leaves >$1T in deficits and hurts the middle class. Way to go! For once, just do the math instead of repeating the ideological talking points. Look in the mirror the next time you call someone a ideologue.
AS, it’s a little early to be crowing. There is no one running against “O” at this point, and when they do, “O’s” own words and record will be the real story. This time next year we ought to see a big change. The republicans best candidate is “O”!
In the past week Trump and Huchabee have removed themselves from the Republican presidential run. Gingrich and Romney have both, due to poor performances, significantly hampered their future campaigning.
That leaves us with announced candidates:
Tim Pawlenty,
Ron Paul,
Herman Cain,
Gary Johnson,
Rick Santorum.
And unannouced candidates:
Michelle Bachmann,
Sarah Palin,
Jon Huntsman,
Mitch Daniels.
and several others that are possible draftees.
Who do you think will be the 2012 Republican Candidate for presdent? You need not select from the provided list, as I think the candidate may still be drafted.
For pure entertainment value Newt has been hard to beat save possibly The Donald. Senator Man on Dog will be fun while he lasts but I fear his time will be short. For the greatest potential laughs I note the insane W era diplomat John Bolton is planning a trip to New Hampshire soon. Between the lunatic advocacy on an Iranian first strike and that hideous mustache he could be a comic book.
FWIW I think it should be noted that as poorly as Newt’s campaign has started out, he got himself in trouble for saying something that is as uncharacteristic for him as it is true. Ryan’s plan is in fact wildly unpopular and extremist, not to mention fiscally ludicrous. (as one commenter put it, the asterisks have asterisks)
Reasonable Republicans (the ones left) should be a bit bothered by this I would think.
CUT AND PASTED FROM THE BULK OF BRUCE BARTLETT’S ARTICLE THE NUMBERS — MOST ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF EVER EXPANDING OUTLET (MALTHUS WAS WRONG BRUCE) — DON’T LOOK CATASTROPHIC OR EVEN PARTICULARLY THREATENING. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/the-real-social-security-and-medicare-problemand-a-doable-fix/
“Looking at Social Security, we see spending rising from 4.8 percent of gross domestic product to 6.2 percent by 2035, an increase of 1.4 percentage points.”
“Another way to think about it is that the long term Social Security deficit is 1.2 percent of G.D.P., or 3.6 percent of taxable payrolls.”
“Thus we could raise the Social Security tax rate from 12.4 percent, which it has been for the last few years, to 16 percent immediately and forever, or we can assume general revenue financing for the unfunded liability and would have to increase federal income taxes from 6.2 percent of G.D.P. to 7.4 percent, about a 30 percent increase in the amount of income tax revenues the government needs to collect.”
************
I’ve always said that if the so-called trust fund peters out (it wont; a 5-year fund needs to be maintained to cover temporary payroll tax shortfalls; happened before) the same tax payer money that was cashing bonds with income tax to feed retirees will simply switch to a higher payroll tax (with accompanying drop in income tax). Instead of 75% payroll tax and 25% income tax, retirees will be paid through 100% payroll tax — only difference, a bit less progressive.
The only practical effects of the trust fund as far as I can see is that it allowed politicians to set on payroll tax rate for 60 years so they would not have to face endless raises and tax payer wrath which payroll tax surpluses on the front (when average income was lowest) made overall taxes more regressive (capped, flat tax paying for on-budget outlays) and more progressive on the end.
Average income doubles twice as fast as population (over 40 years compared to 80 — worker-to-population ratio stabilizes after 2050) so there never was any retiree revenue crisis. If there is any funding problem it is cause by the average worker’s (median) income growth not keeping even close pace with overall income.
For instance, my Social Security payments are supposedly calculated factoring in income growth. But my 1968 income is not credited as double my $25,000 to $50,000. I get credited for only $33,000 because the formula uses average persons’ wages instead of overall growth. In the unbalanced US labor market median income only grew 20% as average income doubled! The minimum wage actually halved by early 2007!! Get the American labor market back in balance and payroll taxes will overflow.
************
************
AGAIN — ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF NORMAL ECONOMIC GROWTH:
“Part A pays for hospital visits and is financed by the Medicare portion of the payroll tax, which is 2.9 percent. […]
To follow up on ddrew2’s offering, here is an excellent piece by Eskow on the same general subject. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011052017/social-securitymedicare-crisis-really-choice-between-middle-class-and-wealthy There’s no crisis. The world isn’t coming to an end and the rapture will not be televised. NancyO
If the congress did a bit more questioning “requirements”.
Aviation Week today reports a rare bit of lucid thinking in the congress:
“Lawmakers are taking aim at the U.S. Air Force’s effort to buy aircraft to train foreign militaries, known as the Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program, due to concerns about its legality and the Pentagon’s “disjointed approach” to buying the aircraft.”
Training foreign militaries is such a good way to build deficits! But that is not the issue with the house armed servcie cmte.
“In its version of the defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee doesn’t zero out funding for the program, but it does rap the Pentagon on the knuckles for failing to deliver a validated requirement. The bill, which still must be passed by the full House and the Senate, would block funding to start such a program until the Joint Requirements Oversight Council signs off on a requirement and the Pentagon’s top acquisition official approves an acquisition strategy.”
Unfortunately, the JROC is a rubber stamp……………………….
AS,
Us reasonable Reps ARE botherd by the above list. I also agree with you that Newt and Donald have and are providiing some excellent entertainment until the y fo away (finally). Don’t know what Santorum has done lately and I really don’t want to know or care. As a Pres asperant he’s road kill before the cars even line up to start. And Boltan (?!?!) you got to be bagging me….
The only thing that will save Obama is the fact the challengers are all week or unknown (but Clinton was unknown at this time in 1990 I think).
Islam will change
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/us/16nursing.html?_r=2&ref=us
This link is to an article about nursing home operators’ attempts to exempte themselves from the employer coverage provisions for minimum or low wage direct care employees working in nursing homes. This is another large group of workers who could benefit greatly from union representation. NancyO
Dean Baker explains why SS opposition is a fact free discipline: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/why-do-opponents-of-social-security-have-so-much-difficulty-getting-their-facts-right
He puts the money quote in his lede paragraph:
The obvious answer is because it doesn’t matter. Those pushing for cuts in Social Security and the other big items on the right’s agenda can get the basic facts about Social Security, the budget and the economy wrong over and over again and it doesn’t in any way affect their standing in the public debate on these issues. One need only look at the career of former Senator Alan Simpson, who has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t have the most basic understanding of the finances of the Social Security system, yet is still seen as a respected voice on this topic.”
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-to-do-if-debt-ceiling-is-not.html
Here’s an interesting take on what to do if Congress refuses to raise the debt limit. Ignore them, says the writer. FYI. NancyO
Seems to me the solution of who to run for P.O.T.U.S. on the Right side, is. . . . “O” as he has shown he’s more right thinking than left. Considering he has done more for the rwpublican side than the democratic one, a new trend can be started, a “Democan or Republcrat”, or any variation of the two.
NanO, the path to a banana republic is not due to Congressional actions but due to dictator-like actions by the president. Your article recommends that theat trend be expanded so that the president ignores Congress, the constitution, and eventually the courts. And, folks of your understanding of “good” think it is the “righ”t thing to do.
Understand why there is such a strong anti-government group, the Tea Party, forming? For them leftist views are so anti-american to ignore our history, and causes great concern. And, you and yours continue to blame the conservatives? That’s scary denialism.
NanO, the path to a banana republic is not due to Congressional actions but due to dictator-like actions by the president. Your article recommends that the president ignores Congress, the constitution, eventually the courts and the people’s will.
Understand why there is such a strong anti-government group, the Tea Party, forming? For them leftist views are so anti-american to ignore our history, and causes great concern. And, you and yours continue to blame the conservatives? That’s scary denialism.
CoRev,
Whom in congress is responsible for setting up the US for insolvency?
You say: “due to dictator-like actions by the president.”
Intriguing, please put up a list of acts. Which president?
Here is the hard question, what were ‘them in congress’ thinking (I used to ask my kids this when they were 4 years old) when ‘them in congress’ passed the appropriations, and knew they were going to let the country go to insolvency?
“Whom in Congress?” You mean, “Who in….”. of course. But, every Congress from 1994 to 2006 was Republican. And with the exception of only a few years, the Senate had a Republican majority as well. So, I’d have to say that the R’s had the power of the purse A Democratic president did concur in those budgets, but the budgets were a creation of the Congress and the Congress alone. I’m sure you know the history of the Debt Limit statute, so I won’t lecture you. However, may I say that the debt service we are obligated to pay resulted from the decisions of past Congresses, not this President.
Co-Rev, the President isn’t threatening to veto the debt limit extension. The Congress is threatening to withold action on it. And, as to the suggestion to keep on going and ignore the debt limit, the idea is that the Congress does not have the power to cause the credit of the US to go into default, debt limit or no debt limit. The 14th Amendment covers that issue in section 4(IIRC). So…..Cheer up. Meanwhile, chill out on the rhetoric. Too well Tea Party-esque. Not like your batter writing. 🙂 Whaddaya
Thank you, ilsm. NancyO
Norman–This POTUS is no FDR, that’s for sure. NancyO
NanO, Article I, Section 7, Clause 7.1 “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Ignoring the “Debt Ceiling” would at the very least conflict with the clause, and the separation clauses. Going forward with your recommendation, ignoring the debt ceiling restriction, would be immediate grounds for impeachment.
Furthermore, the current plan of selling treasuries from the Federal employee trust fund, set a precedence that opens other “Trust Fund” sources for redemption. Think redeeming the “other” big trust fund would start impeachment?
Finally, the House Budget had a long list of targeted programs for cuts/elimination. Take a look at the next message and determine which of those programs are more sacrosanct than that “other BIG” trust fund?
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. Save America ‘s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings. International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings. Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings. Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings. Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings. Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings. Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings. Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings. Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual […]
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!****** Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years. Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings. USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings. Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings. Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings. Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.. HUD Ph.D. Program. Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. TOTAL […]
Why is MG using corev’s login? Come to think of it have they ever been seen together?
It’s not just the list. New Gingrich is toast (already!) because he dared to say what most people believe to be true about Paul Ryan’s delusional “budget”. Who will be sacrificed next on the altar of unpleasant truths? Huntsman? Pawlenty? If you can be marginalized by being too honest about the GOP less realistic ideas who can survive?
Rick Perry hasn’t veered too close to honesty since he’s been governor of TX. Maybe he has more of a shot at this than I think.
Passed the House, but not the Senate. Existing law rules, CoRev! And, the House has been warned that other Trust Funds could be invaded. As a matter of fact, they were before in 1995. Remember? Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed. Anyhow, the origination of the budget per Article I, Section 7, is not at issue. The question is, “Does the Congress have the power to force the Treasury to default?” I argue it doesn’t. Poooh! So there, CoRev. NancyO
Yeeewww! Wait a minute! Oh, noes! Too wierd, AmSoc! NancyO
Either way if they keep up the brinksmanship and ignore the lobbying of Wall Street, the Chamber and the historical example of saint Ronnie the tv pitchman it’s going to be one hell of a show.
(pops popcorn)
NanO, default? How? That would go against your Amendment 14. Another reason to call for impeachment. Wazzamatta, U?
BTW, there’s plenty of revenue to pay off our debts/needs. There’s just not enough to cover all of our wishes/wants. Worse, you can’t get there on just tax raises, but neither party wants to admit it to keep its supporters from rebelling.
CoRev–Of course, tax increases won’t resolve budget deficits and the resulting debt. However, why is it always SS and Medicare that are the enemies of balanced budgets when we have two wars going and something that can become a war cooking away at the same time. It will take many years to pay down the debt. MOre to the point, at the rate we’re going now, it will take centuries to build up the economy. Ilsm keeps saying and it always is true that you can’w have a healthy economy, a strong labor market, and a thriving industrial base at the same time you’re throwing money down the tube in wars and “defense.” Defense against what? Oy!
If we keep going the way we are now, we’re gonna end up like Boris and Natasha sitting on the curb, when Natasha said, “Lets face it, Boris. Ve never catch Moose and Sqvirrel!” NancyO
NsanO asks: “ However, why is it always SS and Medicare that are the enemies of balanced budgets when we have two wars going and something that can become a war cooking away at the same time.”
The simple answer is because they make up the majority of the budget! Cutting all the DoD spending still leaves us with ~ $.8-.9T in deficits. So, why is it always Defense spending that must be cut?
Did you go through the list I provided? Any sacrosanct, or should we just cut all? Can you answer why some of them are even in the budget?
Nancy everyone assumes that Obama cannot instruct Geithner to continue to borrow, but can instruct him to make payments that he wants to make and not others required by law. (How many defense contractors are owed money in Boehner’s congressional district? Are any Medicare payments owed within Ryan’s district? hehe) If Congress forces the President to break one law or break another, SCOTUS presumably would try to stay away from what it would view as a political dispute between the other two branches of government. Obama’s challenge would be to break a law that will not lead to or add much fuel to impeachment hearings by the GOP House. Yup, I’ve been wondering if that circus might come back.
PJR, Obama can’t afford to seem even more politically motivated than he already appears. What’s better breaking laws to fail to pay some debts, or cashing in the TFs (all of them)? That’s puts all future payments out of them from actual revenues (0n budget.)
“The simple answer is because they (social secuity and medicare) make up the majority of the budget!” Coev
You know full well that that is not at all true. Social Security is nt even a part of the general budget let alone a contributor to the deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund is one of many creditors of the USofA. Stop lying about the specifics of he general budget. Creditors are not responsible for the deficiencies of their clients. The military adventurism of the past ten years is the major contributor to the current budget deficit. The tax cuts and continuation thereof is the other major contributor to the budget deficit. Try the truth for a change my friend. I for one am getting tired of your inclination to bend the facts. Yes, money was borowed from the SS Trust Fund and used fo general budget spending. Borrowed is th key word and the fact of the matter is demonstrated by the issuance by the Treasury of those Special Treasury notes which are held by he Trust Fund and account for the money due back from the general budget to the Social Security program. No different from any other creditor. The money was borrowed and i has to be paid back and the books need to be balanced and kept legitimate.
For crying out loud, CoRev. The POTUS is a politician. It is not a criticism to say he is. Now, the President and Sec. Treasury have different duties. The deal is that if the Congress wishes to impeach a President, they can. Please. This guy is at least as competent as GWB. Side bar arguments to the contrary, and you know, future payments don’t change underlying law. Too late for this stuff, CoRev. Tomorrow. Maybe. NancyO
Jack, perhaps you missed this little piece of history from NanO’s earlier comment: in the 1995 debt ceiling battle “Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed.”
The rest of your comment is not even worth responding.
comments here posted seems really cool
http://www.z4site.com
CoRev,
Nice pasting!
Check this out: http://csis.org/files/publication/110517_Berteau_DoDWorkforceCost_Web.pdf
Go to page 1: You will see that in 2010, DoD awarded 161,000 million bucks for commercial services contractors to sit aropund places like Restion, up from 67,000 millions of bucks in 2000. What is DoD getting? Waste.
Then go to Page 4 and you will see that Sec Gates is “not convinced” the wasted contractor equivalents are worth being replaced by federal employees in properly ranked and rated slots. Gates is correct, but cannot be too blunt, he would be like me.
Having been one of those worthless contractors and having managed them for years. Gates is correct at least 300,000 of those worthless contractors can be let go and their wasteful slots discharged too.
At the bottom of page 5 CSIS observes there are “personal services” going on, you bet there are a lot and it is anti deficient as there is no authority in DoD to have personal services! As a former CO you likely know the FAR. Part 37 covers this stuff.
Finally, go back to the footnote in page 2, CSIS does not go into the amount of governmental functions done by contractors because such would add to reporting the fraud involved. In many government program offices the support contractors are the only specialists and not doing the taxpayer protection falls on those FOXES!
CSIS does link to a GAO 06- 838R which tells congress how the DoD is being ripped off.
Your list of cuts to humane programs is a drop in this waste pool.
Jack,
It is shameful that poor, disabled and old people can get some from the corporatists’ federal trough.
That is the Tax Foundation line.
They seem to have a hard time lately holding the message together on the WSJ agit prop page.
Newt on NPr this morning: “I’m still here!” (Paraphrased)
Despite a near universal belief his campaign is effectively over including many GOPers he has vowed to fight on in Iowa. The daily show writers probably can’t believe their good fortune.
I’ll see your sheesh and raise you a mercy sakes
Ah hah, CoRev! Turned out the SS TF’s “worthless IOU’s” weren’t so worthless after all. The Sec of the Treasury is a Trustee of SS, and is the custodian of the bonds. So, he and the the other Trustees agreed to allow the Treasury to use the money represented by the bonds in exchange for interest on the borrowed amount when reimbursed. Not cashable outside the government, but cashable inside the govt so it appears they are a real asset, not a bogus “unsustainable promise.” Careful, next time you’ll actually admit the TF must be honored and that would be the end of the world as you know it. heh heh 😀 NancyO
Hey, AmSoc, there’s also “Lord have mercy,” or “Jesus, Mary and Joseph.” Speaking of which, mornin’ y’all. NancyO
CoRev,
Waste.
Why cut “defense”
Opportunity costs.
Waste.
The list is small potatoes.
AS, as a Newt supporter, I agree with your analysis. My own view is he is toast, with the barest of chances of rehabilitating to his prior lower ranking position. i also beleive he is capable of being tha VP candidate for one of the less accomplished, if s/he should win the nomination. Why not? Dems nominated an even worse Biden for VP.
NanO, find my quote of what you claim, please? 😉
BTW, if they do choose to redeem those SSTF treasuries and spend the proceeds on the general budget (twice at that time), what do you think of the that ole, newly minted, perpetual spending machine. Put in $1 into the SSTF and spend it endlessly, until we reach the $XT mark or economic collpase happens.
Actually, if they use the SSTF treasuries, that should finally put the end to the lie of redeemeing them via borrowing won’t/doesn’t add to the deficit.
Well, CoRev, instead of borrowing to redeem the TF we could simply use tax revenue. Which would not necessarily add to debt. In fact, we would be paying down intragovt debt and reducing the total debt. Now, as ilsm and I keep saying, wars cost too much. Old people don’t even eat a lot and are quite cheap in comparison to weapons systems designed to kill incoming ICBM missles. Look at it this way, keeping SS going is cheaper than two wars running at once and endless weapons systems that don’t work. As between the two, I’ll take the old people.
Why? Well, last I looked, you and me are old people, right? I vote for myself, you vote for yourself, and the first thing you know we’ll have a nice, secure retirement system. TaTa! NancyO
ddrew
i think you mean well, but your facts are … uh… homemade?
the raise in the payroll tax to about 16% combined, can take place at the rate of one half of one tenth of one percent per year, while wages are rising at a rate of over one full percent per year.
general revenue financing would change SS from an insurance program for workers paid for by the workers themselves to a welfare program. a really really bad idea. even if some liberals think its great.
1.2/6.2 is not 30%
are federal income taxes really 6.2% of GDP?
the Trust Fund “normally” maintains a one year reserve, not five.
the “practical effect” of the trust fund is that it smoothes out collections so some accounting sanity can be maintained while pay as you go does its magic. the long running super trust fund enabled the baby boomers to pay a more “generationally fair” tax for their eventual benefits, but the idea is completely lost in all the lies and pathetic replies. the government was going to borrow that money anyway, and would have to pay it back anyway. and pretending that getting the money from taxes is some kind of flim flam or unfair burden on the taxpayer is… more lies.
SS is wage indexed because the taxes are collected from wages, and wage indexing is the best measure of “growth plus inflation”. if wages are not keeping up with growth, SS IS keeping up with wages. and that’s the best we can do. if wages need to be raised, that’s a whole separate problem. don’t ask SS to solve it. that’s not what it’s for.
the worker to retiree population stabilizes about 2050… yes… but it’s at a level that would require that extra 4% combined SS tax.. which the workers get back when they retire. because the worker to retiree ratio is ultimately determined by the ratio of working years to retirement years for the average worker… and whatever they think now the workers are not going to want to retire any later even if they are going to live longer. AND they can pay for the longer retirement… something people have always wanted to do with their money is RETIRE young enough to enjoy it.
Medicare is a whole different deal. medical care needs to be made more cost effective… as is done in the rest of the civilized world. But in any case if we are going to want the medical care, we are going to have to pay for it. And while that would cost an extra 1% of GDP the way things are going (not sure where you got this number, but it’s as close as any other reasonable guess) that GDP is going to be so much larger that even after we have paid for our more expensive medical care we will have twice as much money left for the other things we want.
one of the Big Lies is maintained by carnival arithmetic… we are told to focus on the percent increase in Medicare costs, and ignore the fact that we can afford it, and paying for a longer and healthier life might be one of the best things we can do with our extra money.
everybody is invited to think oh my god they are going to take 30% of my income… and quickly… very quickly… guess how they are going to live on 70% of what they have today. instead, even if they do take 30% of your income to pay for your retirement and medical care, your income will be 200% of what it is today… so think: if i make a thousand a week today and pay 15% for retirement and old age medical care, that leaves me with 850 dollars per week to spend today. In fifity years, those people will be making 2000 per week (real dollars) and paying 30% for retirement and old age medical care (they will be living longer than we are) and that will leave them… 1400 dollars per week to live on.
If […]
Nancy
without reading eskow, i can say that the “choice between the middle class and the wealthy” is not a good way to think about it. the workers can pay for their own retirement and medical care. they don’t need to get the rich to pay for it.
that doesn’t mean the rich don’t need to pay a reasonable share for running the country, which they currently do not. just to day that a normal part of living should not be paid for by welfare.
Nancy
let us remember that those old people paid for their benefits.
as for CoRev, it’s hard enough to put up with his “arguments” but when he starts accusing people of lying because their truth hurts his psychotic “understanding,” i think it’s time to pour a bucket of cold water on his head.
borrowing from peter to repay the money you borrowed from paul does not add to your deficit. it merely shifts who you owe the money to.
and in any case paying back the money you borrowed from SS is not “paying for SS twice” it is paying, for the first time, for whatever you used the borrowed money for.
the double talk of the Big Liars has confused co-rev… as it was intended to do.
ilsm
again, i insist, the old people don’t need fromthe corporatists federal trough. they pay for Social Security themselves.
I know you mean that the corporatists want to thow the old people’s money into their trough, but we need to be clear which direction the charity is going in.
the current Big Lie is that “paying back the Trust Fund adds to the deficit.”
lets, see, the current old paid for their social security. the money was put in trust and lent to The United States of America. But the only way The United States of America can pay back the now old people is to borrow the money from someone else. Therefore, The United States of America shouldn’t have to pay back the money they borrowed from the old people.”
Yes, this is what passes for Conventional Wisdom in washington, and the media, and the highly paid but non partizan experts. And CoRev.
Coberly,
Agreed.
“”Bonds from the CSC and SS TF’s were borrowed and cashed. Later, the SS TF and the CSC TF were reimbursed.” CoRev quoting Nancy out of context.
And that’s your answer to my pointing out the deceptive nature of your argument? Are you serious? I had been thinking that most of your comments are the result of ideologically motivated deception. No, I now understand that you don’t even begin to understand the issue, especially regarding the Social Security system and financial interaction in general. And I love your general approach to debate. “The rest of your comment is not even worth responding [to].” Is that because most of your responses have no real value? Your tendency toward ideological screed is tiresome and adds no value to these discussions. Your “facts” are little more than the talking points of the Social Security deception industry.
“This guy is at least as competent as GWB.”
If it were only true!
“Your tendency toward ideological screed is tiresome and adds no value to these discussions.”
Yeah…Whatever….Like you have room to talk!
Unfortunately….the next President of the United States is Barack Obama. I wish it weren’t so, but America is stupid to get rid of him, and with the help of the corrupt state owned media, and especially propoganda sites like this one, he is going to be a shoe-in.
On a more realistic note, any country dumb enough to have put Obama in power deserves exactly what they get!
Enjoy….your Socialist Utopia!
Martin:
Please illuminate the conversation for us so we may understand exactly what the teabaggers and the Repubs bring to the table which will help Main Street? I m all ears.
run,
Please illuminate the conversation for us so we may understand exactly what the teabaggers and the Repubs bring to the table which will help Main Street? I m all ears.
The tea partiers and the Repubs have the thankless job of saving the country from financial ruin by CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING. You don’t believe me, then listen to the CBO:
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.
Here is a chart showing the growth in debt: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/7/27/saupload_cbo_debt_chart.png
FYI, the upper line is the “do nothing” strategy. OK, you libs want to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses to _______% (fill in the blank) to cut the deficit. Fine, fill in the blank with the amount necessary to alter the course, and watch capital flee the US, which already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Sammy, logic can not be used to counter an argument based almost solely on emotion. How many arguments use the kids, the elderly, some animal/plant, and the the planet, when we pull back the covers from what the useful idiots spout it is always about control., their control over everyone else’s life.
Martin,
I’m referencing the Social Security legislation, as described on the SS Administration web site. I’ve also noted several times recently that that same web site makes it clear that current legislation separates the general budget from that of the SS budget. Social Security is creditor to the Treasury, as required by that same SS legislation. What truth do you know that evades the rest of us who focus more on the facts rather than some convenient truthiness.
Sammy
Cut the budget? What part of a Republican plan does anything like that? It cuts social spending and it cuts tax revenue yet again. Stop being an ideologue. Cutting the deficit is no more difficult than cutting military spending and putting the tax rates back to the year 2000. Argue otherwise all that you like, it isn’t any mystery. Wars of adventure for he past ten years together with too much tax advantage for the wealthiest Americans have left the Treasury short on cash. The fix is easy. The intentions not to do so are mysterious.
Enjoy your Glenn Beck
Mysterious except when examined for self interest on the intender.
Jack, stop being an ideologue. You have yet to do the simplest math to show how good/bad is your proposed solution. Your solution has to get us to a balanced budget in some time frame. Let’s start with the CBO deficit projection of $1.5T to $1.7T for 2011. I’ll even provide some of your numbers for you to gat started.
The Bush tax cuts ~$272.3B* for 2011.
The 2% FICA cut is projected at ~$112B for 2011.
Cost of wars ~$100B for 2011.
* Oops! the bulk ($232B) of those revenue gains come from those making under $250K/Yr
Good job, liberals. Your approach still leaves >$1T in deficits and hurts the middle class. Way to go! For once, just do the math instead of repeating the ideological talking points. Look in the mirror the next time you call someone a ideologue.
And good job teabaggers. Your wingnuttery has all but guaranteed no credible opposition for Obama in 2012.
AS, it’s a little early to be crowing. There is no one running against “O” at this point, and when they do, “O’s” own words and record will be the real story. This time next year we ought to see a big change. The republicans best candidate is “O”!
sheesh away you’ll get covered up