It's nice that a 43 year old RICH Lifelong politician wants to completely obliterate safeguards for the elderly. After Bush helped destroy the economy and put many seniors in danger of poverty, now another Republican wants to put the nail in the coffin of protecting seniors by GROSSLY altering a system that wouldn't need help if these same guys would stop raiding it. Remember these rich guys who run the place NEVER have to worry about healthcare or retirement. They will never be personally effected. Go read about the Ryan budget and you will be thankful if you are born before 1956. Because his proposal would put you on a voucher program that will only be adjusted for general inflation not healthcare inflation which is tremendously higher. You will then be able to buy insurance from a private company. One I am sure will be deregulated up the you know what.
The plan is call "The Road to Prosperity." (For the Rich.)
Economists are already assuring us the vouchers will be devastating for Seniors.
The ridiculous tax cuts and economically decimating wars are the reason we are in trouble not the poor and the elderly.
QuoteThe ridiculous tax cuts and economically decimating wars are the reason we are in trouble not the poor and the elderly.
We could continue to do nothing and watch the program eventually go away.....that is what we have been doing for many years, kicking the can down the road. At least with Ryan, and I don't agree 100% with him, he is putting some ideas on the table. People live longer than when the program was initially created. The 65 age was the median life expectancy at the time of creation, but with seniors now living past the century mark, that has hurt the program and here come the boomers.
We can stick our heads in the sand and all become ostriches or we can work on some solutions to keep the programs around for generations to come. I agree on the tax cuts, we've had them for 10 years, we need to end them, bite the bullet and restore some fiscal responsibility!
Where was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?
If we'd spent a fraction of what we've spent in Iraq on replenishing the social security trust, there wouldn't be any problem to complain about. I'm sick of this falsely bifurcated debate, suck it up, issue more debt, and replenish the fund instead of invading some foreign country this time.
Really it's not that hard.
QuoteWhere was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?
Which Time? 1st Gulf war or 2nd Gulf war? :o
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 12, 2012, 10:20:55 AM
Where was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?
If we'd spent a fraction of what we've spent in Iraq on replenishing the social security trust, there wouldn't be any problem to complain about. I'm sick of this falsely bifurcated debate, suck it up, issue more debt, and replenish the fund instead of invading some foreign country this time.
Really it's not that hard.
+1
Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines. There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc. The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.
The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop. I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful. None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.
Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning? How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy. Is all well in this country? Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks? Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country. Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.
Please introduce me to the Seniors who have passed 100. There are a little over 70,000 I think. And they are probably in better health than we are if they made it that long. So I don't think they are the ones stressing the system. Not EVERY Senior puts a burden on Medicare.
Quote from: ronchamblin on August 12, 2012, 10:30:09 AM
Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines. There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc. The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.
The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop. I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful. None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.
Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning? How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy. Is all well in this country? Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks? Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country. Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.
Beautifully stated!!!
The SS Trust Fund is "replenished" though FICA taxes. The same FICA taxes that we just had a huge debate over restoring a few months ago. The can was kicked down the road by the Democrats and now their "tax cut" has hastened the date that the SS Trust Fund will not be able to pay at 100% of benefits. (Of course, there is not really any money in the "trust fund", just IOU's. That is why the current budget crisis will make refunding those "IOU's" an issue even before the date that the fund will run out of money.)
The only way to "replenish" the fund is to raise the FICA tax rate and/or reduce benefits. (And isolate the fund from the general fund.) Now, you can blame President Johnson, Carter, Reagan, or either Bush...but SOMEONE better start DOING something or the SS system will not be paying full benefits or even paying at all sooner rather than later. Like Ryan's plan or not, at least it is a legitimate proposal. I have not heard any grown up debate or proposal from the other side yet.
By the way, it will come as no surprise that I like the Ryan pick. More responsible politicians like him (from both parties) might actually save this country.
Hogwash, they can (and ultimately will, after what will be a poisonous debate) just dump general revenue into the fund to top it up. They're not going to have a choice, the drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.
QuotePlease introduce me to the Seniors who have passed 100. There are a little over 70,000 I think. And they are probably in better health than we are if they made it that long. So I don't think they are the ones stressing the system. Not EVERY Senior puts a burden on Medicare.
Please pick a program and stick to that argument, do you want to argue about Social Security or Medicare? There are many more ways to collect Medicare than SS, which is easiest when you reach a certain age, but there are people with back aches who collect Medicare, at much younger ages, another flaw in the system with the Disability afforded with Medicare.
SS was never designed to support people for 20 and 30+ years, let alone past 100, and as we advance in medicine, we will see people living far into their 100s, in my lifetime, I expect to live forever, so you better come up with a solution for the people like me who will bankrupt the system! :-*
Quotethe drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.
Agreed, FICA does not even cover the expenses, and it is going to get worse as Boomers retire and without enough Gen X, Y and Z employed, the government cannot kick this can down the road.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 12, 2012, 10:47:39 AM
Hogwash, they can (and ultimately will, after what will be a poisonous debate) just dump general revenue into the fund to top it up. They're not going to have a choice, the drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.
I assume you are familiar with the Constitutional gymnastics that occurred to initiate this "social insurance" program. I would be interested in hearing your professional opinion of how general funds (as if there were any available) could be used to replenish the SS fund within the historical Constitutional limits.
Quote from: ronchamblin on August 12, 2012, 10:30:09 AM
Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines. There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc. The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.
The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop. I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful. None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.
Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning? How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy. Is all well in this country? Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks? Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country. Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.
Why is it that people who talk like this are apparently folks that my 14 year old granddaughter could take in a bar fight. Revolutions always eat there own just check out the jacobians
I did a little research and I am wrong. Apparently, Congress has made appropriation of general funds part of the tax cut bill that was passed. I don't see anyone offering a Constitutional argument against this practice, so I stand corrected on that issue. However, I stand by my statements on the seriousness of the financial problem as stated in the SS Trustees Report Summary below:
A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:
Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2012 Annual Reports.
The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.
Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.
Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP. Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP. Thereafter, the primary factors will be population aging caused by increasing longevity and health care cost growth somewhat more rapid than GDP growth.
Social Security
Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.
Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow rapidly from 11.3 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17.4 percent in 2035, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and the Trustees project these costs will increase gradually to 6.4 percent of GDP in 2035 before declining to about 6.1 percent of GDP by 2050 and then remaining at about that level.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.22 percent projected in last year's report. This is the largest actuarial deficit reported since prior to the 1983 Social Security amendments, and the largest single-year deterioration in the actuarial deficit since the 1994 Trustees Report. This deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost. The 0.44 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit and the three-year advance in the exhaustion date for the combined trust funds reflect many factors. The most significant factor is lower average real earnings levels over the next 75 years than were projected last year, principally due to: 1) a surge in energy prices in 2011 that lowered real earnings in 2011 and is expected to be sustained, and 2) slower assumed growth in average hours worked per week after the economy has recovered. An additional significant factor is the one-year advance of the valuation period from 2011-85 to 2012-86.
While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than ten years, through 2027.
However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.
Medicare
The Medicare HI Trust Fund faces depletion earlier than the combined Social Security Trust Funds, though not as soon as the Disability Insurance Trust Fund when separately considered. The projected HI Trust Fund's long-term actuarial imbalance is smaller than that of the combined Social Security Trust Funds under the assumptions employed in this report.
The Trustees project that Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow substantially from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, and will increase gradually thereafter to about 6.7 percent of GDP by 2086.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 1.35 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.79 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund again fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets are already below one year's projected expenditures and are expected to continue declining. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years, as it has since 2008. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, the same date projected in last year's report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 87 percent of HI costs. The Trustees project that the share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 67 percent in 2045, and then rise slowly until it reaches 69 percent in 2086. The HI 75-year actuarial imbalance amounts to 36 percent of tax receipts or 26 percent of program cost.
The worsening of HI long-term finances is principally due to the adoption of short-range assumptions and long-range cost projection methods recommended by the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Review Panel. Use of those methods increases the projected long-range annual growth rate for Medicare's costs by 0.3 percentage points. The new assumptions increased projected short-range costs, but those increases are about offset, temporarily, by a roughly 2 percent reduction in 2013-21 Medicare outlays required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
The Trustees project that Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow rapidly from 2.0 percent of GDP in 2011 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2035, and then more slowly to 4.0 percent of GDP by 2086. General revenues will finance roughly three quarters of these costs, and premiums paid by beneficiaries almost all of the remaining quarter. SMI also receives a small amount of financing from special payments by States and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs.
Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Affordable Care Act" or ACA). Most of the ACA-related cost saving is attributable to a reduction in the annual payment updates for most Medicare services (other than physicians’ services and drugs) by total economy multifactor productivity growth, which the Trustees project will average 1.1 percent per year. The report notes that sustaining these payment reductions indefinitely will require unprecedented efficiency-enhancing innovations in health care payment and delivery systems that are by no means certain. In addition, the Trustees assume an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013 as required by current law, which is also highly uncertain.
The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenuesâ€"primarily general revenuesâ€"are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010.
Conclusion
Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.
By the Trustees:
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee
Charles P. Blahous III,
Trustee
Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee
Robert D. Reischauer,
Trustee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Ryan's proposal is STILL the only plan offered by either party. Funding the projected shortfalls from general funds, especially with current and projected deficits, will be impossible.
Personally, I think it's a living document, and we did what we had to do to avoid a potential revolution in the 1930s and early 40s. You can't just have half the country starving. Every time that happens, history shows us they don't go home and starve quietly, they revolt. There's a false sense of security with the military, they'll fire on civilians once or twice, but that only has the effect of polarizing the portion of the population that hadn't yet joined the revolution, snowballing things further. And by and large most soldiers won't go to war with members of their own society and race on home soil, regardless of what nationality we're talking about. Plenty of examples of all this happening all through history, and also lately, all over the world.
To answer what I know your question to be though, I guess this comes back to our old friend the general welfare clause, and you and I have hashed that out pretty thoroughly before. I suppose at the end of the day there is support for both of our viewpoints, it just depends on which founding father you want to quote and how literally you interpret their writings. The decision is what we want to do in the present, and living by a rigid literal interpretation of 300 year old document is probably not going to work out in the long-term. Those have been rather a flexible set of ideals from the beginning anyway, the founding fathers themselves didn't even practice their own preaching, the author of "all men created equal..." in the declaration of independence was a slave owner at the time he wrote it. If Hamilton's own 1st Bank of the United States was constitutional, then surely social security is.
Quote from: civil42806 on August 12, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on August 12, 2012, 10:30:09 AM
Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines. There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc. The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.
The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop. I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful. None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.
Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning? How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy. Is all well in this country? Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks? Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country. Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.
Why is it that people who talk like this are apparently folks that my 14 year old granddaughter could take in a bar fight. Revolutions always eat there own just check out the jacobians
I enjoy, civil42, the idea that the current scenario of privilege and power to a few cannot continue. The possibility of change via the political process and maneuvering is there, but will it happen?
By their very nature, revolutions eat everything and everybody at times, which is sometimes necessary to recover from decades of abuse, indifference, and even cruelties by the comfortable ensconced in positions of control and privilege. A revolution, or the threat of it, might spread the suffering to the one percent so that positive change is forced.
Whereas now, only the working class, the innocent and poor are suffering, a revolution, or the threat of one, will force the elites, the comfortable abusers of the system, as mentioned in my above post, to endure the consequences of their wrongs, which might include some suffering for them too, or even death. Complacency is not an option any longer.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 12, 2012, 11:49:10 AM
Personally, I think it's a living document, and we did what we had to do to avoid a potential revolution in the 1930s and early 40s. You can't just have half the country starving. Every time that happens, history shows us they don't go home and starve quietly, they revolt. There's a false sense of security with the military, they'll fire on civilians once or twice, but that only has the effect of polarizing the portion of the population that hadn't yet joined the revolution, snowballing things further. And by and large most soldiers won't go to war with members of their own society and race on home soil, regardless of what nationality we're talking about. Plenty of examples of all this happening all through history, and also lately, all over the world.
To answer what I know your question to be though, I guess this comes back to our old friend the general welfare clause, and you and I have hashed that out pretty thoroughly before. I suppose at the end of the day there is support for both of our viewpoints, it just depends on which founding father you want to quote and how literally you interpret their writings. The decision is what we want to do in the present, and living by a rigid literal interpretation of 300 year old document is probably not going to work out in the long-term. Those have been rather a flexible set of ideals from the beginning anyway, the founding fathers themselves didn't even practice their own preaching, the author of "all men created equal..." in the declaration of independence was a slave owner at the time he wrote it. If Hamilton's own 1st Bank of the United States was constitutional, then surely social security is.
I can't argue with your logic. And you are probably right about the eventual outcome. Eventually it will come to an economic crash though. Perhaps that is when our leaders will finally sit down and discuss the issue like adults. Or maybe even Ron will get what he is asking for, although I fear that outcome will result in great suffering and an unsatisfactory result.
What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed? I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 12, 2012, 03:09:34 PM
What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed? I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.
That has been argued over on this site before. If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues. It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi
Quote from: civil42806 on August 12, 2012, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 12, 2012, 03:09:34 PM
What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed? I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.
That has been argued over on this site before. If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues. It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi
As it stands SS is much more of a generational income transfer than a retirement fund. Young people today will almost certainly put more into Social Security than they will receive in benefits. Since it already is for all intents and purposes welfare for the elderly, I don't see any downside to eliminating the cap. On the other hand, I also have no problem turning Social Security into a mandatory savings account. At least those of us putting money in now will get money out at the end.
I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.
1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those
2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress
3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?
Quote from: JFman00 on August 12, 2012, 03:22:05 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on August 12, 2012, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 12, 2012, 03:09:34 PM
What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed? I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.
That has been argued over on this site before. If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues. It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi
As it stands SS is much more of a generational income transfer than a retirement fund. Young people today will almost certainly put more into Social Security than they will receive in benefits. Since it already is for all intents and purposes welfare for the elderly, I don't see any downside to eliminating the cap. On the other hand, I also have no problem turning Social Security into a mandatory savings account. At least those of us putting money in now will get money out at the end.
I agree with that charles, but dont think a lot of folks do. Me i doubt I will draw a dime out of it. But do see a down side to eliminating the cap. a 6.5 percent increase in the nominal tax rate wouldnt be to popular. Think the downside to it is finally saying its not a "retirement fund" But an income transfer fund, as you so politley put it. Thanks for the nice response to the post.
You want to trust Wall Street and the big banks with your retirement money? No thanks. Privatize the system and you will see fraud, corruption and theft that will begger half the country. They have too much power now.
Vouchers for Medicare? The insurance companies will push up healthcare costs so fast it will make a sonic boom.
Take the $110k cap off FICA; Social Security solved and Medicare helped. Put on a 15% Federal Sales tax for healthcare and make Medicare universal. Let the insurance companies go bankrupt or offer Medicare supplement plans and premium care plans for Mayo, etc. They are currently a zero sum business at best and a drag on the economy most of the time.
Is that a 15% sales tax on top of the state and local taxes? Is that also in addition to the existing tax code?
You, my MJ friends can deal with the details of crunching numbers, as unfortunately I don’t have the time to gather and ponder them, probably not the skill, and therefore I’m too ignorant to contribute in ways you all do. All I have is my gut feelings about what is going on in our country, and a sense of the truths about the iniquities and abuses as perpetrated against the average person by the established power structures within, all of which having been designed to rape the average worker and the poor from all sides, and by any means possible.
My occasional rants, part truth and part fantasy, about the guillotine, perhaps not enjoyed by some, are meant to be somewhat humorous, but also to cultivate a sense of urgency, and a mood which might avoid complacency, and certainly to convey to anyone that there are many of us who are not fooled into thinking that we are making good progress in righting the wrongs in this country, because we are certainly not making good progress. We are going in circles of bullshit, both nationally and right here in our city, and I think most of you know this.
Of course, anyone who might wish to persuade me that there are “no†individuals, such as certain politicians and financial moguls etc, who are guilty of fraud and gross theft of the assets and funds rightfully belonging to the population of hard workers, not to mention the destruction of our economy, then please convince me of it if you have the inclination and the time.
Those who suggest that things are fine, and who are settled into a comfortable living, with a good job, enjoying the reassuring messages and socials of a church, who might offer the occasional insincere token of assistance to the needy, but who ignore genuine concern for the plight of the those who suffer, and struggle to find food, are in most cases, but not always by any means, involved with the conservative party. Many of these individuals will probably not enjoy my rants about a guillotine, and some, perhaps a very few, even shiver somewhat as they contemplate that they themselves might one day be sought to test the efficiency of the blade. There’s that blade again.
And the fellow or lady (civil42806) who verbally slapped me in an earlier post, suggesting that I am one who could not win a fight with his 14 year old granddaughter in a bar, I realize your frustration at reading something that makes you angry or uncomfortable, as the truth often does, and I realize that you might again take another slap at me, but this time, please try to avoid being so juvenile. Try to say something that actually makes sense, as I get impatient very quickly with comments deficient in relevancy and logic. And too, attempt saying something of substance, with an explanation or a question, and not just a useless derogatory remark about someone. If you do not have the thinking and writing skills to argue a point productively and accurately, there are some forums wherein you can find others, of similar disabilities, with whom you can verbally joust nonsense, and exchange attacks at levels to which you apparently enjoy descending.
I hope that, in the interest of enhancing the overall quality of this forum, we can avoid the kind of useless derogatory slaps offered by individuals like civil42806. Increased overall quality of the forum increases readership by those having higher standards, and of course, increased readership brings more revenue to the site.
Quote from: fsquid on August 12, 2012, 07:28:19 PM
Is that a 15% sales tax on top of the state and local taxes? Is that also in addition to the existing tax code?
Yes, and it would be a lot cheaper for the country than the insurance premiums that we are paying now.
How many potential entrepreneurs are stuck in salaried jobs right now so that they can have health insurance for their families? How many new companies and jobs would be created if they were freed of the worry of losing their health coverage? Why do all of the countries of Europe (that Socialist dump) have more small businesses the business friendly United States?
Social Security was supposed to supplement pensions. I've known since I was very young Social Security probably wouldn't be there for me. When it was determined SS probably wouldn't be there for us, back in the 80's or so, they came up with 401(k). That was the new tool to supplement pensions because SS wasn't going to be there for us baby boomers. Now that I'm almost there, I've been priviledged to support "the greatest generation" but it would be nice if there were pensions, SS, or at least 401(k) not ravaged by this recession.
NotNow, as for the general fund, if I remember correctly, it goes back to dumping the Social Security Trust Fund into the general fund to hide the cost of the Vietnam War. If they put the trust fund INTO the general fund, why can't they put money back?
Actually Debbie, the SS Trust Fund was placed exclusively in a special Treasury bill. Those T-bills are just IOU's from the Federal Government, which will pay back those T-bills out of the general fund. As that occurs, the general fund will become even more depleted causing more borrowing. Eventually, the interest on the debt will force us into default. All because we could not develop the courage to control our government spending.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 12, 2012, 04:13:45 PM
I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.
1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those
2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress
3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?
Plus he voted FOR
1) The invasion of Iraq
2) Medicare Part D
3) TARP
Of course a Republican was president then and as we all know, 'deficits don't matter' when the office is held by someone who doesn't have a
D after their name.
Quote from: finehoe on August 13, 2012, 02:27:15 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 12, 2012, 04:13:45 PM
I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.
1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those
2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress
3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?
Plus he voted FOR
1) The invasion of Iraq
2) Medicare Part D
3) TARP
Of course a Republican was president then and as we all know, 'deficits don't matter' when the office is held by someone who doesn't have a D after their name.
Damn... does this mean you are not gonna vote Romney/Ryan??? Whoa...
I don't care what your politics are - this blog is hilarious.
http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/
Quote from: NotNow on August 13, 2012, 02:21:00 PM
Actually Debbie, the SS Trust Fund was placed exclusively in a special Treasury bill. Those T-bills are just IOU's from the Federal Government, which will pay back those T-bills out of the general fund. As that occurs, the general fund will become even more depleted causing more borrowing. Eventually, the interest on the debt will force us into default. All because we could not develop the courage to control our government spending.
Either way NotNow, they took the money out of Social Security.
Yer right about that.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 12, 2012, 10:01:31 AM
We could continue to do nothing and watch the program eventually go away.....that is what we have been doing for many years, kicking the can down the road. At least with Ryan, and I don't agree 100% with him, he is putting some ideas on the table. People live longer than when the program was initially created. The 65 age was the median life expectancy at the time of creation, but with seniors now living past the century mark, that has hurt the program and here come the boomers.
We can stick our heads in the sand and all become ostriches or we can work on some solutions to keep the programs around for generations to come. I agree on the tax cuts, we've had them for 10 years, we need to end them, bite the bullet and restore some fiscal responsibility!
The truth is that the Ryan budget’s largest long-term savings don’t come from Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, or even Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security put together. They come from everything else. Ryan says that under his budget, everything the federal government does that is not Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security will be cut to less than 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. That means defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, energy research, national parks, civil service, the FBI â€" all of it. Right now, that category of spending is 12.5 percent of GDP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-isnt-a-deficit-hawk-hes-a-conservative-reformer/
Gotta love the fear-mongering from the Left. How soon we forget.....
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/12/flashback-left-leaning-politifact-named-democrats-claim-paul-ryan-wants-to-end-medicare-the-2011-lie-of-the-year/
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 05:05:18 PM
Gotta love the fear-mongering from the Left. How soon we forget.....
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/12/flashback-left-leaning-politifact-named-democrats-claim-paul-ryan-wants-to-end-medicare-the-2011-lie-of-the-year/
Gotta love the fact-free drivel from the Right:
"Politifact's assertion that it is a lie to say "Republicans voted to end Medicare" -- and that this is the most important lie of the year -- suffers from some basic flaws: Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare; and Politifact overlooked actual lies that have had and continue to have a profound and debilitating effect on the nation's attempts to come out of lingering economic troubles.
Politifact's "Lie of the Year" announcement provides little in the way of actual evidence that the claim is a lie, instead referring readers to previous efforts for its substantive case, such as it is. The weakness of Politifact's ruling that the House GOP budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not "end Medicare" can be seen in its April 20, 2011, explanation:
QuoteOne of the its major features is dramatically restructuring Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for those 65 and older. Right now, Medicare pays doctors and hospitals set fees for the care beneficiaries receive. [...] In 2022 [under the GOP plan] new beneficiaries would receive "premium support," which means they would buy plans from private insurance companies with financial assistance from the government. [...]the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats would no doubt agree that Ryan's plan for Medicare is a dramatic change of course. But we don't agree with the ad's contention that the proposal ends Medicare.
So, according to Politifact, the House Republican plan constitutes a "dramatic restructuring" of Medicare, a "huge change to the current program," and a "dramatic change of course" by ending the direct payment of fees for service and replacing it with a voucher program. In its "Lie of the Year" write-up, Politifact again concedes the GOP plan "dramatically changed the program [for people currently under age 55] by privatizing it and providing government subsidies." That's ending Medicare, just as replacing the armed services with government vouchers for private bodyguards would be ending the U.S. military. As Igor Volsky wrote earlier this month, "closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years."
But Politifact concluded in April that "we don't agree [...] that the proposal ends Medicare." That should set off some alarm bells: As fact-checks go, "we don't agree" is remarkably weak tea. As justification for naming something the "Lie of the Year," it's an embarrassment.
Paul Krugman and Dan Kennedy and Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias and David Weigel, among countless others, have debunked Politifact's ruling, which holds that as long as something called "Medicare" has something to do with health care for the elderly, it's a lie to say the program has ended, no matter how "dramatic" the "change of course" has been. Even Robert VerBruggen of the conservative National Review has written that Politifact "does not make a good case" and that the Democratic claim does not "rise to the level of 'lie,' much less 'Lie of the Year.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/20/politifacts-flawed-lie-of-the-year-selection-on/185549
Quote from: finehoe on August 13, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
Gotta love the fact-free drivel from the Right:
"Politifact's assertion that it is a lie to say "Republicans voted to end Medicare" -- and that this is the most important lie of the year -- suffers from some basic flaws: Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare; and Politifact overlooked actual lies that have had and continue to have a profound and debilitating effect on the nation's attempts to come out of lingering economic troubles.
Politifact's "Lie of the Year" announcement provides little in the way of actual evidence that the claim is a lie, instead referring readers to previous efforts for its substantive case, such as it is. The weakness of Politifact's ruling that the House GOP budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not "end Medicare" can be seen in its April 20, 2011, explanation:
QuoteOne of the its major features is dramatically restructuring Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for those 65 and older. Right now, Medicare pays doctors and hospitals set fees for the care beneficiaries receive. [...] In 2022 [under the GOP plan] new beneficiaries would receive "premium support," which means they would buy plans from private insurance companies with financial assistance from the government. [...]the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats would no doubt agree that Ryan's plan for Medicare is a dramatic change of course. But we don't agree with the ad's contention that the proposal ends Medicare.
So, according to Politifact, the House Republican plan constitutes a "dramatic restructuring" of Medicare, a "huge change to the current program," and a "dramatic change of course" by ending the direct payment of fees for service and replacing it with a voucher program. In its "Lie of the Year" write-up, Politifact again concedes the GOP plan "dramatically changed the program [for people currently under age 55] by privatizing it and providing government subsidies." That's ending Medicare, just as replacing the armed services with government vouchers for private bodyguards would be ending the U.S. military. As Igor Volsky wrote earlier this month, "closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years."
But Politifact concluded in April that "we don't agree [...] that the proposal ends Medicare." That should set off some alarm bells: As fact-checks go, "we don't agree" is remarkably weak tea. As justification for naming something the "Lie of the Year," it's an embarrassment.
Paul Krugman and Dan Kennedy and Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias and David Weigel, among countless others, have debunked Politifact's ruling, which holds that as long as something called "Medicare" has something to do with health care for the elderly, it's a lie to say the program has ended, no matter how "dramatic" the "change of course" has been. Even Robert VerBruggen of the conservative National Review has written that Politifact "does not make a good case" and that the Democratic claim does not "rise to the level of 'lie,' much less 'Lie of the Year.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/20/politifacts-flawed-lie-of-the-year-selection-on/185549
Media Matters? Really?
See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative. Why? Because there is no Democrats' alternative. They have no plan to fix SS or Medicare. Along with that, the Democratic led Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,200 days. Their only "plan" to fix anything is to:
1. Shoot down any Republican plan with fear-mongering.
2. Blame the Republicans for the problem.
3. Offer no other option to fixing the system other than raising taxes as that is the Democrats' M.O. for everything.
At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*
(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
Media Matters? Really?
Yes really.
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative.
Did you bother to read it? It isn't about "debunking the Ryan plan" it's about debunking the ridiculous assumption that his plan doesn't end medicare as we currently know it. See, there is a difference.
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*
But Ryan’s budget doesn’t do that â€" it isn’t any kind of solution to budget deficits at all â€" unless it does what its own numbers inescapably say it will do and completely eliminates the entire federal government except for the military, Social Security, and health programs. If he really does, contrary to what his budget says, want to keep “infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports†along with veterans’ programs, the FBI, the border patrol, and all the other things that the federal government does now â€" well, then the deficits remain. And that’s not to mention that Ryan and Mitt Romney also support an entirely unrealistic tax “reform†plan that amounts to huge, specified tax rate cuts that would help the rich and vague, unspecified plans to end many tax credits and deductions, something that’s very unlikely to actually happen since those provisions are extremely popular. Ryan’s budget leaves all the pain until after the election â€" pain that’s only necessary in order to achieve the low tax rates, especially on the rich, that Ryan and other Republicans deem essential. Either Ryan’s fiscal vision really would dramatically cut government, or his numbers don’t add up. In short, Ryan is a fraud
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)
The fact that you would trot this tired and easily refuted wingnut talking point out shows you really haven't given much thought to the issue, you are only mindlessly repeating what your plutocratic puppet-masters want you to say.
Wanna know why half of Americans don't pay INCOME tax?
Here: http://rt.com/usa/news/half-poor-america-poverty-909/
Paul Ryan Only Passed 2 Bills Into Law In More Than A Decade
He's been in Congress for nearly 13 years, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has only seen two of his bills pass into law during that time.
Ryan, who Mitt Romney has tapped as his running mate, passed a bill into law in July 2000 that renames a post office in his district. Thanks to Ryan, the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building."
The other time Ryan saw one of his bills become law was in December 2008, with legislation to change the way arrows (as in bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also "includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and accessories."
Kevin Seifert, Ryan's congressional spokesman, did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/paul-ryan-bills_n_1769816.html
QuoteRyan scores lowest poll numbers since Quayle
WASHINGTON â€" Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan scores the lowest initial ratings from Americans of any vice presidential pick since the controversial choice of Dan Quayle nearly a quarter-century ago, a weekend USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-13/ryan-romney-poll/57038326/1
Quote from: finehoe on August 13, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 05:05:18 PM
Gotta love the fear-mongering from the Left. How soon we forget.....
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/12/flashback-left-leaning-politifact-named-democrats-claim-paul-ryan-wants-to-end-medicare-the-2011-lie-of-the-year/
Gotta love the fact-free drivel from the Right:
"Politifact's assertion that it is a lie to say "Republicans voted to end Medicare" -- and that this is the most important lie of the year -- suffers from some basic flaws: Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare; and Politifact overlooked actual lies that have had and continue to have a profound and debilitating effect on the nation's attempts to come out of lingering economic troubles.
Politifact's "Lie of the Year" announcement provides little in the way of actual evidence that the claim is a lie, instead referring readers to previous efforts for its substantive case, such as it is. The weakness of Politifact's ruling that the House GOP budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not "end Medicare" can be seen in its April 20, 2011, explanation:
QuoteOne of the its major features is dramatically restructuring Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for those 65 and older. Right now, Medicare pays doctors and hospitals set fees for the care beneficiaries receive. [...] In 2022 [under the GOP plan] new beneficiaries would receive "premium support," which means they would buy plans from private insurance companies with financial assistance from the government. [...]the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats would no doubt agree that Ryan's plan for Medicare is a dramatic change of course. But we don't agree with the ad's contention that the proposal ends Medicare.
So, according to Politifact, the House Republican plan constitutes a "dramatic restructuring" of Medicare, a "huge change to the current program," and a "dramatic change of course" by ending the direct payment of fees for service and replacing it with a voucher program. In its "Lie of the Year" write-up, Politifact again concedes the GOP plan "dramatically changed the program [for people currently under age 55] by privatizing it and providing government subsidies." That's ending Medicare, just as replacing the armed services with government vouchers for private bodyguards would be ending the U.S. military. As Igor Volsky wrote earlier this month, "closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years."
But Politifact concluded in April that "we don't agree [...] that the proposal ends Medicare." That should set off some alarm bells: As fact-checks go, "we don't agree" is remarkably weak tea. As justification for naming something the "Lie of the Year," it's an embarrassment.
Paul Krugman and Dan Kennedy and Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias and David Weigel, among countless others, have debunked Politifact's ruling, which holds that as long as something called "Medicare" has something to do with health care for the elderly, it's a lie to say the program has ended, no matter how "dramatic" the "change of course" has been. Even Robert VerBruggen of the conservative National Review has written that Politifact "does not make a good case" and that the Democratic claim does not "rise to the level of 'lie,' much less 'Lie of the Year.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/20/politifacts-flawed-lie-of-the-year-selection-on/185549
Good. Now we can stop using Politifact as an objective purveyor of truth. Thanks Finehoe!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-roosevelt-recognize-todays-social-security/2012/04/08/gIQALChd4S_story.html
Quote
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: April 8
Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security? The question seems absurd. After all, Social Security is considered the New Deal’s signature achievement. It distributes nearly $800 billion a year to 56 million retirees, survivors and disabled beneficiaries. On average, retired workers and spouses receive $1,839 a month â€" money vital to the well-being of millions. Roosevelt would surely be proud of this, and yet he might also have reservations. Social Security has evolved into something he never intended and actively opposed.
It has become what was then called “the dole†and is now known as “welfare.†This forgotten history clarifies why America’s budget problems are so intractable.
When Roosevelt proposed Social Security in 1935, he envisioned a contributory pension plan. Workers’ payroll taxes (“contributionsâ€) would be saved and used to pay their retirement benefits. Initially, before workers had time to pay into the system, there would be temporary subsidies. But Roosevelt rejected Social Security as a “pay-as-you-go†system that channeled the taxes of today’s workers to pay today’s retirees. That, he believed, would saddle future generations with huge debts â€" or higher taxes â€" as the number of retirees expanded.
Discovering that the original draft wasn’t a contributory pension, Roosevelt ordered it rewritten and complained to Frances Perkins, his labor secretary: “This is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress . . . to meet.â€
But Roosevelt’s vision didn’t prevail. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress gradually switched Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system. Interestingly, a coalition of liberals and conservatives pushed the change. Liberals wanted higher benefits, which â€" with few retirees then â€" existing taxes could support. Conservatives disliked the huge surpluses the government would accumulate under a contributory plan.
All this is well-told in Sylvester Schieber’s “The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System.†Schieber probably knows more about American retirement programs than anyone. He has advised the Social Security system, consulted with private firms and written widely on the subject. His book shows how today’s “entitlement†psychology dates to Social Security’s muddled beginnings.
Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they “earned†these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs. Indeed, Roosevelt â€" believing he had created a contributory program â€" said exactly that:
“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. . . . No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.â€
What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement. Unsurprisingly, AARP’s advertising slogan is “You’ve earned a say†on Social Security. The trouble is that contributions weren’t saved. They went to past beneficiaries. The $2.6 trillion in the Social Security trust fund at year-end 2010 sounds like a lot but equals slightly more than three years of benefits.
With favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 times their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren’t), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.
But now, demographics are unfriendly. In 1960, there were five workers per recipient; today, there are three, and by 2025 the ratio will approach two. Roosevelt’s fear has materialized. Paying all benefits requires higher taxes, cuts in other programs or large deficits. Indeed, the burden has increased, because it now includes Medicare, which is also viewed as an entitlement.
Although new recipients have paid payroll taxes higher and longer than their predecessors, their benefits still exceed taxes paid even assuming (again, fictitiously) that they had been invested. A two-earner couple with average wages retiring in 2010 would receive lifetime Social Security and Medicare benefits worth $906,000 compared with taxes of $704,000, estimate Steuerle and Rennane.
By all rights, we should ask: Who among the elderly need benefits? How much? At what age? If Social Security and Medicare were considered “welfare†â€" something the nation does for its collective good â€" these questions would be easier. We would tailor programs to meet national needs. But entitlements are viewed as a higher-order moral claim, owed individuals based on past performance. So a huge part of government spending moves off-limits to intelligent discussion.
We can only imagine how Roosevelt would view this. He consistently advocated a fully funded Social Security and used his second veto on a 1942 tax bill that delayed higher payroll taxes. But Congress overrode the veto, and Roosevelt was preoccupied by World War II.
Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security?
Would George Washington approve of today's global empire "defense" apparatus?
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/426637_10151361917048327_1825594538_n.jpg)
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 09:21:26 AM
Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security?
Would George Washington approve of today's global empire "defense" apparatus?
Did ya read the article?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 11:17:25 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 09:21:26 AM
Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security?
Would George Washington approve of today's global empire "defense" apparatus?
Did ya read the article?
Yes. SS has evolved to have somewhat different characteristics than what Roosevelt may have envisioned. So what? Our military has evolved to have vastly different characteristics than our first commander-in-chief envisioned. I don't hear conservatives using that as a rationale to gut defense spending.
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of its enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time? Is that your point? I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
Your side wants to kill all your perceived enemies - real or not - by engorging the Military Industrial Complex with endless tax dollars.
Oh yeah, and your draconian plans to gut Medicare, Medicaid and SS proves your indifference toward killing your fellow citizens who are worse off than you.
The only safe people in your society are the well off and the embryo.
GOP=The Killing Party.
(http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016769412dac970b-550wi)
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of is enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time? Is that your point? I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".
No he only means Defense spending should NEVER be cut. To hell with people in need or the elderly.
Only programs that benefit humans should be reformed and have reduced spending.
Aren't these the same people who justify being armed to the teeth to protect them from the boogie man government who also want that same government to be armed enough to take down the world?
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of its enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time? Is that your point? I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".
Given your statement regarding President Washington and and the size and commitment of our current military you seem to be saying that the concept of defense has morphed from the founders concept...
Likewise... You seem to admit and endorse the changes in Social security... that Roosevelt... according to the article... probably would not approve of.
If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also? (not that I endorse cutting or reducing SS.)
Quote from: avonjax on August 14, 2012, 12:54:10 PM
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
Gutting Social security? You mean stop gutting social security... I think. On the other hand... isnt that rational used exactly to gut defense spending by your side? it should work both ways dont ya think?
So are you saying that whatever the characteristics of a government program/department/whatever is at the time of is enactment, that is how it should remain, unchanging until the end of time? Is that your point? I don't get what you are trying to say about "my side".
No he only means Defense spending should NEVER be cut. To hell with people in need or the elderly.
Only programs that benefit humans should be reformed and have reduced spending.
Aren't these the same people who justify being armed to the teeth to protect them from the boogie man government who also want that same government to be armed enough to take down the world?
AJ... I do not tell everyone what you mean... or say... please do not put words(or bumper stickers) in my mouth.
Thank you.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also?
I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote. You posted an article from faux-economist hack Samuelson that implies that since SS differs from what Roosevelt may have envisioned, that somehow that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program. I'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well. Nothing about a cut in one must necessarily equal a cut in the other.
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: finehoe on August 13, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
Gotta love the fact-free drivel from the Right:
"Politifact's assertion that it is a lie to say "Republicans voted to end Medicare" -- and that this is the most important lie of the year -- suffers from some basic flaws: Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare; and Politifact overlooked actual lies that have had and continue to have a profound and debilitating effect on the nation's attempts to come out of lingering economic troubles.
Politifact's "Lie of the Year" announcement provides little in the way of actual evidence that the claim is a lie, instead referring readers to previous efforts for its substantive case, such as it is. The weakness of Politifact's ruling that the House GOP budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) did not "end Medicare" can be seen in its April 20, 2011, explanation:
QuoteOne of the its major features is dramatically restructuring Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for those 65 and older. Right now, Medicare pays doctors and hospitals set fees for the care beneficiaries receive. [...] In 2022 [under the GOP plan] new beneficiaries would receive "premium support," which means they would buy plans from private insurance companies with financial assistance from the government. [...]the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats would no doubt agree that Ryan's plan for Medicare is a dramatic change of course. But we don't agree with the ad's contention that the proposal ends Medicare.
So, according to Politifact, the House Republican plan constitutes a "dramatic restructuring" of Medicare, a "huge change to the current program," and a "dramatic change of course" by ending the direct payment of fees for service and replacing it with a voucher program. In its "Lie of the Year" write-up, Politifact again concedes the GOP plan "dramatically changed the program [for people currently under age 55] by privatizing it and providing government subsidies." That's ending Medicare, just as replacing the armed services with government vouchers for private bodyguards would be ending the U.S. military. As Igor Volsky wrote earlier this month, "closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years."
But Politifact concluded in April that "we don't agree [...] that the proposal ends Medicare." That should set off some alarm bells: As fact-checks go, "we don't agree" is remarkably weak tea. As justification for naming something the "Lie of the Year," it's an embarrassment.
Paul Krugman and Dan Kennedy and Steve Benen and Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias and David Weigel, among countless others, have debunked Politifact's ruling, which holds that as long as something called "Medicare" has something to do with health care for the elderly, it's a lie to say the program has ended, no matter how "dramatic" the "change of course" has been. Even Robert VerBruggen of the conservative National Review has written that Politifact "does not make a good case" and that the Democratic claim does not "rise to the level of 'lie,' much less 'Lie of the Year.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/20/politifacts-flawed-lie-of-the-year-selection-on/185549
Media Matters? Really?
See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative. Why? Because there is no Democrats' alternative. They have no plan to fix SS or Medicare. Along with that, the Democratic led Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,200 days. Their only "plan" to fix anything is to:
1. Shoot down any Republican plan with fear-mongering.
2. Blame the Republicans for the problem.
3. Offer no other option to fixing the system other than raising taxes as that is the Democrats' M.O. for everything.
At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*
(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)
If you didn't want the Republican's to be blamed for everything you shouldn't have allowed the obstructionist Tea Party to contaminate your party. I know you guys can't stand it, but not all the country agree with you. The "right" has become a party looking for a dictatorship. Their way or the highway. Like it or not a land of political, social and economically diverse citizens need compromise not dogmatism by one side, right or left.
Don't give me the "Obama had a democrat controlled Congress the first two years" garbage. Instead of cramming crap down your throat like the right wants to do at least he was aware not all American's are alike or agree or want just "one way."
And again don't give me any crap about healthcare reform. This has been something that other presidents have "hidden under their blankies with their teddy bears," so at least Obama had the boldness to take action and do something. Of course it is horribly watered down and was watered down to appease the right. Then the idiots voted against it anyway.
"The Tea Party." The worst thing to happen to politics in my lifetime.
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 01:18:43 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 14, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
If Defense should be cut/reformed/reduced... using that argument... should SS also?
I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote. You posted an article from faux-economist hack Samuelson that implies that since SS differs from what Roosevelt may have envisioned, that somehow that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program. I'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well. Nothing about a cut in one must necessarily equal a cut in the other.
Sounds like a compromise in the making... :)
QuoteI'm saying that if that is the criteria we use, then we should apply it to defense as well.
I have no problem with that. Also... I do not think Samuelson is saying "that in itself is a justification for making changes to the program."
You also say that "SS has evolved to have somewhat different characteristics than what Roosevelt may have envisioned." Since that in fact is the case then it may be time for some more evolution...
QuoteWith favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 times their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren’t), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.
But now, demographics are unfriendly. In 1960, there were five workers per recipient; today, there are three, and by 2025 the ratio will approach two. Roosevelt’s fear has materialized. Paying all benefits requires higher taxes, cuts in other programs or large deficits. Indeed, the burden has increased, because it now includes Medicare, which is also viewed as an entitlement.
Quote from: finehoe on August 13, 2012, 08:24:21 PM
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
Media Matters? Really?
Yes really.
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
See, the thing is that nowhere in Media Matters or Kennedy or Krugman's, etc., debunking of the Ryan plan do they offer the Democrats' alternative.
Did you bother to read it? It isn't about "debunking the Ryan plan" it's about debunking the ridiculous assumption that his plan doesn't end medicare as we currently know it. See, there is a difference.
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
At least Paul Ryan offers a plan and crunches the numbers instead of pointing the finger across the aisle and shouting that we should raise taxes on the rich*
But Ryan’s budget doesn’t do that â€" it isn’t any kind of solution to budget deficits at all â€" unless it does what its own numbers inescapably say it will do and completely eliminates the entire federal government except for the military, Social Security, and health programs. If he really does, contrary to what his budget says, want to keep “infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports†along with veterans’ programs, the FBI, the border patrol, and all the other things that the federal government does now â€" well, then the deficits remain. And that’s not to mention that Ryan and Mitt Romney also support an entirely unrealistic tax “reform†plan that amounts to huge, specified tax rate cuts that would help the rich and vague, unspecified plans to end many tax credits and deductions, something that’s very unlikely to actually happen since those provisions are extremely popular. Ryan’s budget leaves all the pain until after the election â€" pain that’s only necessary in order to achieve the low tax rates, especially on the rich, that Ryan and other Republicans deem essential. Either Ryan’s fiscal vision really would dramatically cut government, or his numbers don’t add up. In short, Ryan is a fraud
Quote from: Jameson on August 13, 2012, 06:47:55 PM(*at a time when 49.5% of Americans pay no income tax at all and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 14% above the world average.)
The fact that you would trot this tired and easily refuted wingnut talking point out shows you really haven't given much thought to the issue, you are only mindlessly repeating what your plutocratic puppet-masters want you to say.
Wanna know why half of Americans don't pay INCOME tax?
Here: http://rt.com/usa/news/half-poor-america-poverty-909/
So I'm a puppet?
Let me inform you that I'm voting for neither one of those two idiots.
I'm placing my vote for Gary Johnson.
His track record speaks for itself. His policies actually work.
Will he win? Probably not. But he's who I believe in. And a vote for actual "change" has to start somewhere.
As for your poverty issue, what is the solution? The big bad "rich" people pay even more taxes to support the poor? Why can't they give that money to charities that support the poor? Politicians and Gov't. employees are going to get paid the same whether or not they actually help the poor or not. Whereas a charity has more of a vested interest and wants to succeed in helping the poor. At what point do the Democrats actually come up with a responsible solution to a problem instead of the regurgitated "let's raise taxes" mantra of the Left?
The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:
Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.
And yet it is amazing to me that so many people favor the latter when we can simply look across the pond to Europe right now at France, Spain, Greece, Italy, etc., and see that it doesn't work.
(Side note: I'm still waiting for an example of the Democrats' proposal to fix SS or Medicare.)
Social Security and Medicare don't need "fixing". They have just had their funding drained by Congressional spending on four unnecessary wars in the past fifty years. Absent the spending on them SS and Medicare would be doing just fine.
Fix the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
I'm still waiting for an example of the Democrats' proposal to fix SS or Medicare.
Obama’s Medicare reform plan isn’t that hard to find. It’s largely in Title III of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The basic strategy has three components: First, figure out what “quality†in health care is. Second, figure out how to pay for quality rather than paying for volume. Third, make it easier for Medicare to quickly update itself to reflect both advances in knowledge about what quality is and how to pay for it.
And so, in Title III, you’ll find dozens of different efforts to achieve these goals. The most famous of them is Section 3403, which establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). But there’s also Section 3021, which creates the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and Section 3025, which cuts hospital reimbursements if too many of their patients are readmitted, and Section 3001, which establishes value-based purchasing for hospital services, and Section 3015, which collects data on quality, and Section 3502, which advances the medical home model.
Some of the efforts are outside Title III. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is actually in Title VI of the law. And then there are the subsequent reforms the administration has proposed to save more money. Those can be found on pages 33-37 of the president’s 2013 budget proposal. They include expanding IPAB’s mandate such that it can change Medicare’s benefit package and setting a growth cap on Medicare of GDP+0.5 percentage points â€" which is, by the way, the same growth cap that Rep. Paul Ryan imposes in the latest iteration of his budget.
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:
Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.
This is just standard teabag boilerplate. Few people look on the role of government is such a simplistic, bifurcated way.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 14, 2012, 02:28:56 PM
Social Security and Medicare don't need "fixing". They have just had their funding drained by Congressional spending on four unnecessary wars in the past fifty years. Absent the spending on them SS and Medicare would be doing just fine.
Fix the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
Lol... well we certainly cannot work together on solutions if we cannot even agree that a problem even exists.
Is this wrong?
QuoteWith favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 times their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren’t), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.
But now, demographics are unfriendly. In 1960, there were five workers per recipient; today, there are three, and by 2025 the ratio will approach two. Roosevelt’s fear has materialized. Paying all benefits requires higher taxes, cuts in other programs or large deficits. Indeed, the burden has increased, because it now includes Medicare, which is also viewed as an entitlement.
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
...we can simply look across the pond to Europe right now at France, Spain, Greece, Italy, etc., and see that it doesn't work.
We know that the supporters of austerity simultaneously urge us to reject “European socialism†while adopting the key European strategies that drove Europe into recession â€" twice. American conservatives assume that Europe must epitomize stringent financial regulation. The opposite is true. Europe adopted “light touch†financial regulation pursuant to neo-liberal economic theory. Its embrace of the three “de’s†â€" deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization was far more extreme than the United States. The City of London “won†the regulatory race to the bottom with the U.S. European’s adopted the full Basel II reduction in capital requirements without the minimum gearing ratio that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insisted upon. The FDIC prevailed over the intense, but fortunately unsuccessful opposition of the Federal Reserve economists who were the principal architects of Basel II’s disastrous reduction in capital requirements. The result was that European Union banks had roughly twice the leverage of U.S. banks and faced no meaningful regulatory restraints. The result was far larger real estate bubbles in several European nations (as a percentage of GDP) than in the U.S., multiple financial crises, and a Great Recession that reached depression levels in several nations.
Most of Europe was in a weak recovery from that Great Recession when Berlin’s insistence on austerity (a pro-cyclical policy that causes recessions to become more severe) threw most of the Eurozone back into recession and much of the periphery into severe depressions. We have run a “natural experiment.†The U.S. adopted a modest counter-cyclical fiscal policy while Berlin forced Eurozone nations to adopt pro-cyclical fiscal policies. The result has been a modest recovery in the U.S. and a second, gratuitous recession in the Eurozone with depression-level disasters in much of the EU periphery. Their problems have little to nothing to do with their welfare state.
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:
Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.
This is just standard teabag boilerplate. Few people look on the role of government is such a simplistic, bifurcated way.
Typical liberal rhetoric of name-calling and stereotyping. *yawn
Continue to weakly stereotype me if it makes you feel better.
Quote from: finehoe on August 14, 2012, 02:50:55 PM
Obama’s Medicare reform plan isn’t that hard to find. It’s largely in Title III of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The basic strategy has three components: First, figure out what “quality†in health care is. Second, figure out how to pay for quality rather than paying for volume. Third, make it easier for Medicare to quickly update itself to reflect both advances in knowledge about what quality is and how to pay for it.
And so, in Title III, you’ll find dozens of different efforts to achieve these goals. The most famous of them is Section 3403, which establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). But there’s also Section 3021, which creates the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and Section 3025, which cuts hospital reimbursements if too many of their patients are readmitted, and Section 3001, which establishes value-based purchasing for hospital services, and Section 3015, which collects data on quality, and Section 3502, which advances the medical home model.
Some of the efforts are outside Title III. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is actually in Title VI of the law. And then there are the subsequent reforms the administration has proposed to save more money. Those can be found on pages 33-37 of the president’s 2013 budget proposal. They include expanding IPAB’s mandate such that it can change Medicare’s benefit package and setting a growth cap on Medicare of GDP+0.5 percentage points â€" which is, by the way, the same growth cap that Rep. Paul Ryan imposes in the latest iteration of his budget.
Let's go with the very first component: "Quality".
Obamacare extends healthcare to tens of millions of Americans without adding 1 single Doctor or Nurse or Specialist (it does however pay for 16,000 new IRS Agents). Couple that with the fact that we are facing a doctor shortage ( http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22205 )
You honestly believe that the "Quality" of health care is going to improve under these conditions?
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 03:57:14 PM
You honestly believe that the "Quality" of health care is going to improve under these conditions?
That's not this issue. Read it again. The plan that you previously seemed to be unaware of doesn't say it will result in improvements in quality, it's about determining what “quality†in health care actually is so that is what you are paying for, not the volume that your referencing of more doctors and doctor shortages implies.
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 03:48:36 PM
Typical liberal rhetoric of name-calling and stereotyping. *yawn
Continue to weakly stereotype me if it makes you feel better.
LOL. Yeah, you don't know anything about stereotyping:
Quotethe majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:
Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem
Quote from: Jameson on August 14, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
The older I get, the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people in this world fall into two categories in regards to Gov't.:
Those who want limited Gov't. intrusion into their lives and more emphasis on personal responsibility.
-OR-
Those who have a feeling of entitlement as though the Gov't. "owes" them something for merely being born and believe that Gov't. is the answer to every problem.
I actually don't know anyone that falls into either of these categories.
Which tax loopholes Will Romney-Ryan close? They refuse to say, but no doubt they will choose the ones that benefit the middle-class.
(http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201761739ad40970c-550wi)
Some of you folks really kill me, the loopholes and class warfare won't amount to a hill of beans if you do not GROW the country with JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. When the country has more revenue coming in, you can resume the loophole arguments.
class warfare gets people to the polls though.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AMWhen the country has more revenue coming in
During Obama's administration we have added over 800 billion to annual GDP only China and Japan have added more. While 4 of the worlds top 10 ecconomys have lost GDP. What we should say to Obama about the ecconomic management of this global recession is thank you.
In her book A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of he husband and then killed her.
That is class warfare.
Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 15, 2012, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AMWhen the country has more revenue coming in
During Obama's administration we have added over 800 billion to annual GDP only China and Japan have added more. While 4 of the worlds top 10 ecconomys have lost GDP. What we should say to Obama about the ecconomic management of this global recession is thank you.
Voters don't care about GDP, most are not smart enough or educated enough to understand it. What they do understand is the unemployment number and that will influence voters much more than any GDP numbers ever will.
Ryan stated on Fox News that he doesn't know when their plan will balance the budget because they haven't run the numbers... but Obama is terrible by the way.
Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2012, 11:56:21 AM
Quote from: fsquid on August 15, 2012, 11:52:38 AM
class warfare gets people to the polls though.
hmm class warfare?
What on earth are you talking about, fsquid?
This is one of the more bizarre, over used terms that has ever been deployed by rightwing partisans over the past 20 years.
Please tell us, in your own words, what you think 'class warfare' is?
"Class warfare" to me is the act of demonizing a socio-economic class for political gain; and both sides engage in it.
"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
Quote from: avonjax on August 15, 2012, 10:44:20 PM
"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
At this point it is. When Reagan was in office it was the pet phrase of the left.
Quote"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
Actually it is what President Obama is waging right now, anyone with a brain realizes that he is demonizing the people who are successful and asking them to pay more, to subsidize support for the middle class and poor. What happened to the "We're all in this together" stump speech from 2008? If we are all in this together, we should all pay for the debt. Not just those who have been more successful.
I look at it fairly simply, if a single person has income of 1 million dollars and pays 15% capital gains on the interest they receive, instead of a W2, they pay $150,000 in taxes. As opposed to a single person who makes $50,000 and is in the 25% tax bracket and pays $12,500 in taxes. So the millionaire is paying more than 10x the taxes as the middle class person. But that is not enough for the President, he wants to tax all revenue at the tax bracket level. Penalize the people who have built success to subsidize the country.
Screw it, just go with a flat tax and we all pay the same. That is the "We're all in this together" solution!
What absurd logic.
You say it should be fair, and then somehow conclude that paying less because you make more fits the definition. Taxes are a percentage of your income, nobody cares whether the CEO of AT&T is paying more in total dollars than the waitress down the street. What matters in terms of fairness is the percentage each gives. Comparing total dollars paid is apples to pomegranates, since the two don't make the same amount of money.
I've heard that absurd argument a few times now, it's disingenuous and self-serving. Somehow income inequality makes it fair for the person with more income to pay a lower share of it in taxes. Yeah, ok.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 07:54:08 AM
Quote"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
Actually it is what President Obama is waging right now, anyone with a brain realizes that he is demonizing the people who are successful and asking them to pay more, to subsidize support for the middle class and poor. What happened to the "We're all in this together" stump speech from 2008? If we are all in this together, we should all pay for the debt. Not just those who have been more successful.
I look at it fairly simply, if a single person has income of 1 million dollars and pays 15% capital gains on the interest they receive, instead of a W2, they pay $150,000 in taxes. As opposed to a single person who makes $50,000 and is in the 25% tax bracket and pays $12,500 in taxes. So the millionaire is paying more than 10x the taxes as the middle class person. But that is not enough for the President, he wants to tax all revenue at the tax bracket level. Penalize the people who have built success to subsidize the country.
Screw it, just go with a flat tax and we all pay the same. That is the "We're all in this together" solution!
A single person having an adjusted gross income of $50,000 (which is after all deductions are claimed) does not pay $12,500 in taxes. Using the 2012 tax tables they pay the following:
10% on the first $8,700 which is $870
15% on the next $26,650 which is $3,997.50
25% on the next $14,650 which is $3662.50 (the next threshold actually goes to $85,650 but we can stop at $50k)
Which totals $8,530 in taxes and about 2/3 of the $12,500 you are using.
When a person is married and they are filing jointly the tables change and the income thresholds change.
QuoteYou say it should be fair, and then somehow conclude that paying less because you make more fits the definition. Taxes are a percentage of your income, nobody cares whether the CEO of AT&T is paying more in total dollars than the waitress down the street. What matters in terms of fairness is the percentage each gives. Comparing total dollars paid is apples to pomegranates, since the two don't make the same amount of money.
Who said life was fair? Who said you are entitled to anything? The only thing you are given at birth is the ability to convert Oxygen into Carbon Monoxide, the rest, is up to you, as an individual. Entitlements are a joke!
QuoteA single person having an adjusted gross income of $50,000 (which is after all deductions are claimed) does not pay $12,500 in taxes. Using the 2012 tax tables they pay the following:
10% on the first $8,700 which is $870
15% on the next $26,650 which is $3,997.50
25% on the next $14,650 which is $3662.50 (the next threshold actually goes to $85,650 but we can stop at $50k)
Which totals $8,530 in taxes and about 2/3 of the $12,500 you are using.
Thanks for the info, I am not a CPA, but I know the argument well, penalize those who use a lower tax rate on the interest income received, instead of receiving a salary. The issue is clear class warfare. Penalize the successful and give the money to the lazy sons of beeches who are in entitlement soup!
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
I know the argument well, penalize those who use a lower tax rate on the interest income received, instead of receiving a salary. The issue is clear class warfare.
You're certainly right about that. Making people who actually work for a living pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those who do nothing productive and just sit back and live off income derived from economic rents
is clearly class warfare. War on the lower- and middle-classes by the one percent.
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 09:09:40 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
I know the argument well, penalize those who use a lower tax rate on the interest income received, instead of receiving a salary. The issue is clear class warfare.
You're certainly right about that. Making people who actually work for a living pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those who do nothing productive and just sit back and live off income derived from economic rents is clearly class warfare. War on the lower- and middle-classes by the one percent.
then lobby to get rid of the capital gains tax or dividend tax. Wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, but that would be a way to do it.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
QuoteA single person having an adjusted gross income of $50,000 (which is after all deductions are claimed) does not pay $12,500 in taxes. Using the 2012 tax tables they pay the following:
10% on the first $8,700 which is $870
15% on the next $26,650 which is $3,997.50
25% on the next $14,650 which is $3662.50 (the next threshold actually goes to $85,650 but we can stop at $50k)
Which totals $8,530 in taxes and about 2/3 of the $12,500 you are using.
Thanks for the info, I am not a CPA, but I know the argument well, penalize those who use a lower tax rate on the interest income received, instead of receiving a salary. The issue is clear class warfare. Penalize the successful and give the money to the lazy sons of beeches who are in entitlement soup!
One other thing to note, interest is taxed as normal income not as a capital gain. Capital gains come from things like the sale of stocks, bonds, real estate.
Here is a wiki that explains it better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Quote from: carpnter on August 16, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
One other thing to note, interest is taxed as normal income not as a capital gain. Capital gains come from things like the sale of stocks, bonds, real estate.
This is true. However, dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains. Which doesn't change my point above.
Quote from: fsquid on August 16, 2012, 09:25:55 AM
then lobby to get rid of the capital gains tax or dividend tax. Wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, but that would be a way to do it.
I don't think it should be gotten rid of. I believe it should be raised to equal the tax rate on a wage or salary. Why should you be taxed less just because you don't do any actual work?
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 07:54:08 AM
Quote"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
Actually it is what President Obama is waging right now, anyone with a brain realizes that he is demonizing the people who are successful and asking them to pay more, to subsidize support for the middle class and poor. What happened to the "We're all in this together" stump speech from 2008? If we are all in this together, we should all pay for the debt. Not just those who have been more successful.
I look at it fairly simply, if a single person has income of 1 million dollars and pays 15% capital gains on the interest they receive, instead of a W2, they pay $150,000 in taxes. As opposed to a single person who makes $50,000 and is in the 25% tax bracket and pays $12,500 in taxes. So the millionaire is paying more than 10x the taxes as the middle class person. But that is not enough for the President, he wants to tax all revenue at the tax bracket level. Penalize the people who have built success to subsidize the country.
Screw it, just go with a flat tax and we all pay the same. That is the "We're all in this together" solution!
You are delusional if you really believe that. It is fact that a flat tax would be harmful to the poor. It galls so many right wingers when the poor don't pay the same taxes as those who are better off. When all of you have to try to survive while earning wages that are below the poverty line you may then say what you want. Until then you know nothing of what you speak.
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 16, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
One other thing to note, interest is taxed as normal income not as a capital gain. Capital gains come from things like the sale of stocks, bonds, real estate.
This is true. However, dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains. Which doesn't change my point above.
Only "qualified dividends" are taxed at the capital gains rate. Otherwise they are taxed as normal income. It really is a confusing mess. The tax code is in dire need of simplification.
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 16, 2012, 09:25:55 AM
then lobby to get rid of the capital gains tax or dividend tax. Wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, but that would be a way to do it.
I don't think it should be gotten rid of. I believe it should be raised to equal the tax rate on a wage or salary. Why should you be taxed less just because you don't do any actual work?
Because that money has already been taxed.
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
QuoteYou say it should be fair, and then somehow conclude that paying less because you make more fits the definition. Taxes are a percentage of your income, nobody cares whether the CEO of AT&T is paying more in total dollars than the waitress down the street. What matters in terms of fairness is the percentage each gives. Comparing total dollars paid is apples to pomegranates, since the two don't make the same amount of money.
Who said life was fair? Who said you are entitled to anything? The only thing you are given at birth is the ability to convert Oxygen into Carbon Monoxide, the rest, is up to you, as an individual. Entitlements are a joke!
QuoteA single person having an adjusted gross income of $50,000 (which is after all deductions are claimed) does not pay $12,500 in taxes. Using the 2012 tax tables they pay the following:
10% on the first $8,700 which is $870
15% on the next $26,650 which is $3,997.50
25% on the next $14,650 which is $3662.50 (the next threshold actually goes to $85,650 but we can stop at $50k)
Which totals $8,530 in taxes and about 2/3 of the $12,500 you are using.
Thanks for the info, I am not a CPA, but I know the argument well, penalize those who use a lower tax rate on the interest income received, instead of receiving a salary. The issue is clear class warfare. Penalize the successful and give the money to the lazy sons of beeches who are in entitlement soup!
It is statements like this that make the right wingers and tea baggers despicable to me. There are those lazy sob's that are in the "entitlement soup," but there are hard working, decent people, many that are forced to be in that "entitlement soup."
If there wasn't so much freakin' greed in our world today, there would be less people in that "entitlement soup."
And yes greed runs all the way down the socioeconomic chain.
So if you're going to hang that tag on everyone in need you get absolutely no respect from me on anything you have to say.
When you meet the fate of so many hardworking people and are suffering their plight. Check back.
Until then..........I won't say it.
Quote from: avonjax on August 16, 2012, 02:04:22 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 07:54:08 AM
Quote"Class warfare" is the pet phrase of the right wing.
Actually it is what President Obama is waging right now, anyone with a brain realizes that he is demonizing the people who are successful and asking them to pay more, to subsidize support for the middle class and poor. What happened to the "We're all in this together" stump speech from 2008? If we are all in this together, we should all pay for the debt. Not just those who have been more successful.
I look at it fairly simply, if a single person has income of 1 million dollars and pays 15% capital gains on the interest they receive, instead of a W2, they pay $150,000 in taxes. As opposed to a single person who makes $50,000 and is in the 25% tax bracket and pays $12,500 in taxes. So the millionaire is paying more than 10x the taxes as the middle class person. But that is not enough for the President, he wants to tax all revenue at the tax bracket level. Penalize the people who have built success to subsidize the country.
Screw it, just go with a flat tax and we all pay the same. That is the "We're all in this together" solution!
You are delusional if you really believe that. It is fact that a flat tax would be harmful to the poor. It galls so many right wingers when the poor don't pay the same taxes as those who are better off. When all of you have to try to survive while earning wages that are below the poverty line you may then say what you want. Until then you know nothing of what you speak.
I grew up "poor", or at least what the government would call "poor". I struggled payday to payday for a large part of my young adult life. I'm still solidly in the middle class, the working class. I am a union member and I am labor. Do I know of what I speak? Or do I (or anyone else) really need your permission?
Avon,
Some guy works his but off and saves up a good nestegg. He has paid income tax on the income and the interest. He dies and leaves the money to his kids. They pay the estate tax. They invest the money in stocks and bonds. They pay the income tax on interest. Why should they pay income tax rates on the success of their business investment? That investment money has already been taxed. We (should) want businesses to grow and be successful. Thus we have a "capital gains" tax. Our rate for such a tax is high compared to other countries. Shouldn't we encourage investment? Are we just envious of that man's children who inherited the fruits of his hard work? How does that money belong to the government or anyone else? We don't all start off even. The government can't make life "fair". It can only penalize one group of people or favor a group of people. Either is a mistake. Rather than fixate on what others have accumulated, I prefer to leave my children both a little money to invest, and the guts and desire to do the same for their children.
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 16, 2012, 09:25:55 AM
then lobby to get rid of the capital gains tax or dividend tax. Wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, but that would be a way to do it.
I don't think it should be gotten rid of. I believe it should be raised to equal the tax rate on a wage or salary. Why should you be taxed less just because you don't do any actual work?
I meant lobby to raise those rates, shouldn't post before coffee.
You do that, why would people still invest in businesses? Why wouldn't I take that money and buy state and muni bonds?
Quote from: NotNow on August 16, 2012, 02:51:50 PM
Avon,
Some guy works his but off and saves up a good nestegg. He has paid income tax on the income and the interest. He dies and leaves the money to his kids. They pay the estate tax. They invest the money in stocks and bonds. They pay the income tax on interest. Why should they pay income tax rates on the success of their business investment? That investment money has already been taxed. We (should) want businesses to grow and be successful. Thus we have a "capital gains" tax. Our rate for such a tax is high compared to other countries. Shouldn't we encourage investment? Are we just envious of that man's children who inherited the fruits of his hard work? How does that money belong to the government or anyone else? We don't all start off even. The government can't make life "fair". It can only penalize one group of people or favor a group of people. Either is a mistake. Rather than fixate on what others have accumulated, I prefer to leave my children both a little money to invest, and the guts and desire to do the same for their children.
Under the last president I paid a higher percentage of tax on my hard earned bonuses than many millionaires pay on their dividend earnings. But you know what. I never complained. I didn't blame the president.
Sometimes due to circumstances beyond our control, guts and desire are just not enough.
Taxes will never be "fair.' But they will always be necessary.
Besides I wasn't speaking directly to you.
Just hope that calamity doesn't befall you. Especially after middle age.
And why do people who are comfortably middle class or better think that they are superior.
At least that's the way it comes across.
that is because if you bonus is cash, it is considered income.
I am not trying to sound "superior". I'm a working guy. I don't make a lot of money and I have never received a "bonus" in my life. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject. There will always be folks who need help because of some calamity. But not half the country. There will always be some that don't achieve as much income for any number of reasons. And there will always be a few who make gobs of money that can't seem to put three words together coherently. That's just the way it is. The jobs and compensation issues must be addressed in this country, but not through government mandate.
Quote from: fsquid on August 16, 2012, 07:11:13 PM
that is because if you bonus is cash, it is considered income.
I realize that. All I'm saying is when I did earn a bonus it was taxed at a much higher rate.
Quote from: NotNow on August 16, 2012, 08:45:54 PM
I am not trying to sound "superior". I'm a working guy. I don't make a lot of money and I have never received a "bonus" in my life. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject. There will always be folks who need help because of some calamity. But not half the country. There will always be some that don't achieve as much income for any number of reasons. And there will always be a few who make gobs of money that can't seem to put three words together coherently. That's just the way it is. The jobs and compensation issues must be addressed in this country, but not through government mandate.
Half the country is not getting government assistance. A tremendous amount of people are not paying income tax because of their annual earnings. For example year before last I earned less than $15,000 dollars, so no I paid no taxes. But I did pay taxes on everything other than food and drugs that I purchased. And I did pay into Medicare and SS.
I was earning 5 times that 6 years ago. But I still don't blame the government or the president because I couldn't get a job.
Keep in mind that middle aged people are in dire straits when they lose their jobs.
NOBODY wants to hire you because of 1. Your age 2. Most companies big and small don't want to invest in an employee that doesn't have a long term future with their company.
No matter how educated you are or how hard you work, how you come to work everyday and come on time they still don't want to hire you.
And believe me after a couple of YEARS of unemployment you are willing to take anything, but "anything" is not willing to take you.
Fortunately for me I had saved a lot of money and tightened my belt, but the money still ran out.
But millions live paycheck to paycheck, sometimes it's their fault sometimes not, and if they get caught in long term unemployment, or god forbid have a catastrophic illness or accident, where are they to turn?
Sorry we don't live in the dark ages when people lived to 40.
If that were the case we could just let them die.
But we live in a country where a CEO of a major corporation can make $140,000,000 while laying off employees and moving jobs overseas.
It's irrational when the pay rate of CEO's has increased 127+% in the last 10 years, yet the unemployment rate is as high as it is. And the pay scale of the average worker has decreased.
Are these guys really "entitled" to such lavish wages?
Did they do anything to earn that kind of money?
The reality is NO!
Did the bankers still get huge paychecks even as their institutions had to be bailed out for horrific mismanagement?
Absolutely.
I'm not directing this at you, but people apparently feel entitled, rich and poor.
And back to class warfare. The real class warfare is against the poor and the middle class not the rich.
Again as I have stated many times I blame greed for many of the economic problems we face.
Some politicians try to blame SS, Medicare and Welfare for the financial woes of this country. But they refuse to consider any kind of tax hike, (even a small one) or cutting one dime from defense spending to help alleviate the problem.
Sorry I just can't accept that.
QuoteThe jobs and compensation issues must be addressed in this country, but not through government mandate.
Amen brother +1! I need the government telling women they are going to hell if they abort a fetus, after all, we live in a socialist world, so why not have the government in a woman's uterus. One thing I do not agree with Republicans or Catholics on, now way, not gonna happen. Choice is a good thing.
Avonjax - You really need to re-read Aldous Huxley's classic book, "Brave New World", in which the vast majority of the population is unified under the World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy. Essentially utopia, a fantasyland for dreamers.
I am here to bring you back to reality. Unemployment benefits for 99 weeks? Are you kidding me? Of course there is the Food Stamp program where 1 in 7 Americans is on Food Stamps. Gingrich called Obama, the Food Stamp President, and here he wants to increase the food stamp rolls, which are fraught with fraud. >:(
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm)
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-really-ryan-budget
QuoteWhat's Really in the Ryan Budget
by Daniel J. Mitchell
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on August 16, 2012.
Thanks to several years of fiscal restraint during the 1990s, the burden of federal spending dropped to 18.2% of gross domestic product by the time Bill Clinton left office. The federal budget today consumes more than 24% of economic output, a one-third increase since 2001 in the share of the U.S. economy allocated by politics rather than market forces. That makes the Republican House budget, which would reverse this trend, extremely important for the economic health of the country.
Both political parties deserve blame for the spending spree that's put America in a fiscal ditch. President George W. Bush was a big spender and President Obama has compounded the damage with his stimulus spending and other programs.
But the era of bipartisan big government may have come to an end. Largely thanks to Rep. Paul Ryan and the fiscal blueprint he prepared as chairman of the House Budget Committee earlier this year, the GOP has begun climbing back on the wagon of fiscal sobriety and has shown at least some willingness to restrain the growth of government.
Policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP â€" leaving more resources in the private economy.
The Ryan budget has generated considerable controversy in Washington, and it will become even more of an issue now that Mr. Ryan is Mitt Romney's running mate. So it's an appropriate time to analyze the plan and consider what it would mean for America.
The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. If spending is left on autopilot, by contrast, it would grow by 4.3% (or nearly 39% faster). If President Obama is re-elected, the burden of spending presumably will climb more rapidly.
This comes as a surprise to many people since the press is filled with stories about the Ryan budget imposing trillions of dollars of "savage" and "draconian" spending cuts. All of these stories, however, are based on Washington's misleading budget process that automatically assumes an ever-expanding government. The 4.3% "base line" increase is the benchmark for measuring "cuts" â€" even though spending is rising rather than falling, and it's only the rate of spending growth that is being slowed.
Even limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent). Since revenues would climb more than twice as fast as spending, the deficit would drop to about 1% of gross domestic product by the end of the 10-year budget window.
To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. Spending in the Ryan budget means the federal budget reaches balance in 2040. There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn't the deficit that matters.
Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP â€" leaving more resources in the private economy.
The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I've been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government. This is what happens with the Ryan budget. The Congressional Budget Office expects nominal economic output (before inflation) to grow about 5% each year over the next decade. So if federal spending grows 3.1% annually, the burden of federal spending slowly shrinks as a share of GDP.
According to the House Budget Committee, the federal budget would consume slightly less than 20% of economic output if the Ryan budget remained in place for 10 years. This would be remarkable progress considering that the federal government is now consuming 24% of GDP vs. Mr. Clinton's 18.2% in 2001. If Paul Ryan's policies are social Darwinism, as Mr. Obama and his allies allege, one can only speculate where Bill Clinton ranks in their estimation.
Spending restraint also creates more leeway for good tax policy. Regardless of what you think about deficits, the political reality is that it is difficult to lower tax rates if government borrowing remains at high or rising levels. If deficit spending continues at current levels, then higher tax rates are almost sure to follow. And higher tax rates can't create an environment conducive to more investment and jobs.
The Ryan budget avoids this unpleasant outcome by addressing the problem of excessive government spending. This makes it possible to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax-rate reductions. It also clears the way for other pro-growth reforms, such as Gov. Romney's proposed across-the-board 20% income tax cut, a more competitive 25% corporate tax rate, and less double-taxation of dividends and capital gains.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond.
This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. Price controls are notoriously ineffective â€" because health-care providers adapt by ordering more tests and procedures â€" and politically unsustainable due to lobbying pressure. Means testing imposes an indirect penalty on people who save and invest during their working years. That should be a nonstarter for a political party that seeks to encourage productive behavior and discourage dependency.
But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.
Assuming the GOP ticket prevails in November, Mitt Romney will make the big decisions on fiscal policy. But there is no escaping the fiscal math. If Mr. Romney intends to keep his no-tax-hike promise, he has to restrain the growth of spending. This doesn't mean he has to go with every detail of the Ryan budget â€" but it's certainly a good place to start.
QuoteThanks to several years of fiscal restraint during the 1990s
Uh, no, thanks to the revenue increases enacted by Clinton in 1993.
Romney vows to boost national debt by $716 billion, no one blinks
By David Lauter
August 17, 2012, 9:01 a.m.
Before the presidential campaign hurtles off to the next skirmish, take a moment to notice what happened this week: Mitt Romney vowed to increase the national debt by $716 billion, and no one so much as blinked.
Romney's handling of the $716 billion in Medicare cost cuts comes close to being a perfect example of why federal spending so seldom gets cut â€" everyone favors restraining government spending in theory, but voters seldom love it in practice.
To recap: As part of the Obama health reform law, Congress voted to reduce payments to certain hospitals, insurance companies and other healthcare providers by about $716 billion over the next 10 years. The law directed the money to help pay for expanded prescription drug coverage for seniors â€" eliminating the so-called doughnut hole â€" and to help cover younger Americans who do not have insurance at their jobs.
When Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Romney’s choice as his running mate, drafted his budget plan, he included repeal of Obama’s health law. But he kept those Medicare cost cuts and applied the savings to reducing the federal deficit. Why wouldn’t he, after all? Ryan was trying to close a huge budget gap, and here was a rare case in which Congress had already agreed to a spending restraint that was relatively non-controversial -- the hospitals and provider groups had agreed to the cuts, and they would not reduce benefits to Medicare patients.
But Ryan’s decision â€" logical though it may have been in the budget context â€" blunted a Republican attack on Obama for “raiding†Medicare. So on Wednesday, Romney made clear that he would eliminate the Medicare savings, and Ryan fell into line.
The move would mean Medicare’s main trust fund would run out of money in just four years, rather than 12 under Obama’s plan. And because Romney did not offer any new revenue to cover the $716 billion cost, nor any offsetting reductions, the price tag would simply be added to the national credit card â€" worsening the “prairie fire of debt†that Romney decried in a speech this spring.
How much is $716 billion? It’s equal to half of all the money that Congress agreed to cut last summer after a two-month standoff over the national debt.
Needless to say, both sides indulge in this sort of thing during a campaign year. This week, Obama was in Iowa, pledging support for a wind-energy tax credit that’s popular with Iowa farmers. But the tax credit costs a bit over $1 billion a year, roughly one-seventieth of Romney’s Medicare move.
Whether Romney’s move helps him win the election remains to be seen â€" it’s too early to know who is winning the campaign battle over Medicare. But if he does win, this week’s decision will make his governing tasks $716 billion harder.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-vows-to-boost-national-debt-by-716-billion-no-one-blinks-20120817,0,3372935.story
Quote from: finehoe on August 17, 2012, 02:33:14 PM
QuoteThanks to several years of fiscal restraint during the 1990s
Uh, no, thanks to the revenue increases enacted by Clinton in 1993.
Awesome! is that your only objection?? How about this?
QuoteThe most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. If spending is left on autopilot, by contrast, it would grow by 4.3% (or nearly 39% faster). If President Obama is re-elected, the burden of spending presumably will climb more rapidly.
This comes as a surprise to many people since the press is filled with stories about the Ryan budget imposing trillions of dollars of "savage" and "draconian" spending cuts. All of these stories, however, are based on Washington's misleading budget process that automatically assumes an ever-expanding government. The 4.3% "base line" increase is the benchmark for measuring "cuts" â€" even though spending is rising rather than falling, and it's only the rate of spending growth that is being slowed.
Quote from: finehoe on August 17, 2012, 02:37:06 PM
Romney vows to boost national debt by $716 billion, no one blinks
By David Lauter
August 17, 2012, 9:01 a.m.
To recap: As part of the Obama health reform law, Congress voted to reduce payments to certain hospitals, insurance companies and other healthcare providers by about $716 billion over the next 10 years. The law directed the money to help pay for expanded prescription drug coverage for seniors â€" eliminating the so-called doughnut hole â€" and to help cover younger Americans who do not have insurance at their jobs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-vows-to-boost-national-debt-by-716-billion-no-one-blinks-20120817,0,3372935.story
Does anyone know which section of the law this it excerpted from?
I don't understand, if you cut $716B from hospitals, etc. but then apply it to expanded coverage for Seniors and uninsured how is that a cut in Medicare?
I guess I have a too simplistic idea of how this works?
Its not.
In the sane and normal universe, it would be called a reallocation for greater efficiency.
In the Romneyverse, its a cut.
I love this article because it's so true.
Paul Ryan once said that the reason he got into public service was because he had been inspired by Ayn Rand. But as anyone who is even superficially familiar with the late libertarian knows, Rand’s philosophy left no room for “public service.†She envisioned a place in which government does not exist, where the weak are left to struggle on their own, and society is propelled forward by the John Galts of the world, or as Ryan calls them, “job creators.†Of course, for all of Rand’s philosophical broadsides against government, she had no qualms about collecting Medicare and Social Security benefits.
In truth, this hypocrisy is about the only similarity between Ryan and Rand. To say that Ayn Rand inspired him to become a public servant is tantamount to Ryan admitting that he does not actually believe in public service, except to the extent that he wants to reduce the number of services provided to the public. Though this understanding of the idea is odd, it is not necessarily a contradiction. If Ryan really believes the public is best served by a government that is limited in its powers and scopeâ€"as most Republicans claim to believeâ€"then so be it.
But what does Ryan’s record indicate?
Based on what mainstream pundits are saying, Paul Ryan is either a bold choice with a grand vision to fix the country’s dire fiscal problems, or a radical Tea Party ideologue who wants to push America’s grannies off a cliff.
Both assessments are wrong.
Paul Ryan isn’t bold, and he’s no more of an extremist than Mitt Romney. Instead, Paul Ryan is your basic pro-bank bailout, anti-civil liberties, warmongering politician who wants to finance tax cuts for the wealthy by slashing social programs. Subsequently, Ryan has the temerity to insist that we, all of us, need to have an “adult conversation†about the state of the country’s finances, as if the American public, and not Ryan, has been the one exploding the national debt with votes in favor of the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act that was essentially $500 billion taxpayer-funded giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, among other boondoggles.
In the end, Ryan’s record won’t be all that impactful because his positions mirror those of Romney’s on most major issues. The media is so desperate for new angles in this intolerably boring race between Obama and Romney, that they’re eager to portray Paul Ryan as a radical departure from business as usual, but in fact Paul Ryan is business as usual.
Wow! Ryans speech at the RNC is making me sick. He is so insincere I could vomit.
When he said all Obama's ads were negative attacks I laughed out loud. That is all Romney's have been. Of course peppered with lies.
By the way the other side is not totally innocent.
If the GOP takes the White House the Dems had better be as obstructionist as the Republicans have been.
No compromise EVER!
The Dems should make it their goal to get the loser Republican out in 4 years.
The same crap was said about Medicare by the way.
And that loser is talking about Obama care taking money out of Medicare, as if he gives a crap, and putting IT in Obamacare. EVERYONE WITH A FREAKIN' BRAIN IN THEIR IDIOTIC HEAD KNOWS THIS IS A LIE. The Dems need to blast them to bits for continuing perpetrating that proven LIE!
He is talking about protecting Medicare not raiding it. He is so freakin's smug.
The truth is the chances of the Affordable care act being repealed very slim.
I like the fact that Paul Ryan's wealth came from his wife's family. Wow
That's a hard way to get rich.
I have decided that the Republicans are just power hungry little kids. And they are mad they are not in control.
I really don't see how the Republicans are going to create jobs any faster by the way. Big corporations are only going to hire who they need. Major corporations like Best Buy are on fragile ground which will eliminate thousands of jobs if they go and more large companies could follow. If a large bank fails the Republicans promise to let it go. No matter the ripple effect. Talk about the "trickle down" effect. How will the Republican's allow taxes to be collected from internet sales? They have vowed no taxes. They insist on deregulation at any cost. They want to continue to cut taxes at any cost. They live in a dream world that will implode them if they don't take a harder look.
Now Ryan is talking about all the great things Romney has done in business. Sure by raping companies and outsourcing. Costing thousands of jobs.
Would one of the Republicans out there tell me what they mean when they say they believe in more freedom. Freedom for what? I don't get it.
Quote from: Midway ® on August 17, 2012, 06:51:43 PM
Its not.
In the sane and normal universe, it would be called a reallocation for greater efficiency.
In the Romneyverse, its a cut.
I think I am starting to understand who some of our resident MJ posters are.
As far as this point goes, 700B (+/-) in "cuts" to medicare going to other resources, amounts to ... wait for it...
700B in cuts to medicare. We could say that those particular cuts are going to be made by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse if it helps to make the statement feel more realistic, but if you are a Medicare beneficiary, or provider, these are real cuts. Medicare part D beneficiaries will like it. So will Pharmacies and Big Pharma.
It is not tantamount to cuts in overall healthcare expenditures but it is a cut to Medicare expenditures. More opiates, please?
Avon, I would recommend a cease and desist on watching the RNC Convention. Do you really hope to gain any knowledge from it? Do you enjoy being outraged?
I do however, recommend that you watch the DNC using the same level of scrutiny (BS filters on their "high" setting) as you are using here.
Note the platitudes. (Freedom, in this case) Platitudes are utterly useless except as a means of evoking false hope.
Review the list of Obama/Bush Campaign donors.
Review policy enactments from Bush and Obama.
Consider honestly any similarities and differences.
Have a look-see at the Romney campaign donor list.
opensecrets.org
(A lil help)
Share with us what you find.
Avon, please save rants like the one above for your personal diary and not a community forum. At least there everyone will think you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 30, 2012, 09:22:10 AM
Avon, please save rants like the one above for your personal diary and not a community forum. At least there everyone will think you know what you're talking about.
Agreed
If you noticed I posted about Ryan while he was on. I was just giving my commentary of his smugness.
Buckethead you are wrong about the cuts. Period!
And accusing people of knowing what they are talking about is the usual accusation of the other side.
By the way I know both parties sling their share of crap.
I just agree with the progressive side way more.
Quote from: carpnter on August 30, 2012, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 30, 2012, 09:22:10 AM
Avon, please save rants like the one above for your personal diary and not a community forum. At least there everyone will think you know what you're talking about.
Agreed
Avon started the thread. Don't read it if it offends your delicate sensibilities.
Quote from: avonjax on August 30, 2012, 09:43:02 AM
1)If you noticed I posted about Ryan while he was on. I was just giving my commentary of his smugness.
2)Buckethead you are wrong about the cuts. Period!
3)And accusing people of knowing what they are talking about is the usual accusation of the other side.
4)By the way I know both parties sling their share of crap.
5)I just agree with the progressive side way more.
1) Obviously
2) Please point out any factual errors in my post. Comma,
3) I'm not sure what this means
4) Agreed, which is the main point I made.
5) On what?
All of the media are commenting on how Ryan repeated the lies and distortions that he has been called out on before.
"Obama caused GM plant closing in Wisconsin!" No, George Bush was President when it happened.
you gotta lie to win the throne.
Quote from: fsquid on August 30, 2012, 11:09:53 AM
you gotta lie to win the throne.
So true. It's humorous to think that just one side lies and twists the truth.
Quote from: stephendare on August 30, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: fsquid on August 30, 2012, 11:09:53 AM
you gotta lie to win the throne.
Im sorry that you think that way.
The rest of us deserve better.
You do, I'm just living in reality.
Paul Ryan's speech in three words: Dazzling, Deceiving, Distracting.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
How The Media Soft-Plays Paul Ryan’s Lies: ‘Factual Shortcuts,’ ‘Perceived Inaccuracies,’ ‘Questionable Claims’
Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) speech to the Republican National Convention last night was chock-full of bald-faced lies. For example, Ryan blamed the Obama for S&P’s downgrade of our credit rating (despite the fact that S&P blamed GOP policies) and blasted Obama for failing to heed the Bowles-Simpson debt commission (which Ryan torpedoed). Yet political reporters covering the speech have, in many cases, been curiously reticent to call Ryan’s lies what they are. Here’s a list, in no particular order, of the euphemisms used in place of “lie†to describe Ryan’s falsehoods:
1. “Factual shortcuts.†â€" Jack Gillum and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press. Even in some pieces ostensibly devoted to fact-checking Ryan’s speech, like this Associated Press item, reporters shy away from the term “lie.â€
2. “Factually challenged†â€" John Berman, CNN. The word lie was later used on air to describe Ryan’s speech, but by The Daily Caller’s Will Cain, who was defending Ryan against the charge.
3. “Inaccuracies†â€" Donovan Slack, Politico. In what’s essentially a he-said-she-said post about the Obama campaign’s reactions to Ryan’s lies, Slack refers to the speech as “otherwise well-reviewed†despite the avalanche of criticism Ryan received for the speech’s tenuous relationship with the truth.
4. “Mr. Ryan ran headlong into the fire†â€" Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times. The Times’ write-up of the speech fails to call out any of the lies in Ryan’s speech, focusing instead on how the speech would play politically â€" an issue which is in part determined by how the press chooses to cover the speech.
5. “He is viewed as a truth teller.†â€" Howard Kurtz, Newsweek/The Daily Beast. Kurtz chooses to repeat this supposed perception of Ryan without addressing the question of whether the content of the speech is, in fact, truthful.
6. †Paul Ryan stretched some truths Wednesday night…according to the fact checkers†â€" Mark Memmott NPR. In an otherwise admirable piece critiquing Ryan’s speech, Memmott uses both a the “stretched the truth†euphemism and frames the issue as a debate between fact-checkers and Ryan. The Romney campaign dismisses factcheckers, having said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.â€
7. “Questionable claims.†â€" Carol Costello, CNN. Costello goes on to say that Ryan’s claims about a GM plant in his hometown were rated by CNN factcheckers as “true but incomplete.â€
8. “It’s keeping fact-checkers busy…[the Obama campaign] is trying to call attention to perceived inaccuracies in Ryan’s speech†â€" Chuck Todd, MSNBC. Indeed.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/30/774211/how-the-media-soft-plays-paul-ryans-lies-factual-shortcuts-perceived-inaccuracies-questionable-claims/
Quote from: Lunican on August 30, 2012, 01:47:30 PM
Paul Ryan's speech in three words: Dazzling, Deceiving, Distracting.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
What is the world coming to when a fox news article calls Ryan's speech deceptive and distracting?
Better make a copy before they scrub that article, once Roger realizes its there.
I thought this was an interesting quote:
QuoteOn the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words
OH SNIZZZZAPP!
Hell NO!
Fox News did not just betray the Red team! :o
It's crazy that Ryan blamed Obama for the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating since S&P literally wrote that they are downgrading as a result of the Republicans inability to raise revenues or the debt ceiling.
QuoteCompared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Here I go again...
Marco seem to be giving a similar speech to the one given by Ryan last night.
These new young tea party guys need to have a few drinks and lighten up.
I'm enjoying Romney blaming Obama for the high price of everything. What a joke. And again that stupid lie about raiding Medicare of over 700 billion dollars.
And to put a cherry on top he promised to create 12 million new jobs and promised every American he would give them a job.
That's gonna happen.
I have to tell everyone that Romney is sickening.
He does nothing but pander to the party.
He is telling everyone what they want to hear.
His speech is disgusting.
Quote from: avonjax on August 30, 2012, 11:11:20 PM
I'm enjoying Romney blaming Obama for the high price of everything. What a joke. And again that stupid lie about raiding Medicare of over 700 billion dollars.
And to put a cherry on top he promised to create 12 million new jobs and promised every American he would give them a job.
That's gonna happen.
I have to tell everyone that Romney is sickening.
He does nothing but pander to the party.
He is telling everyone what they want to hear.
His speech is disgusting.
12 Million jobs are coming from..........??
He's into spending every dime on the military that's for sure.
Everything is the same old Republican rhetoric.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing.
Maybe Bain Capital needs 12 million more employees.
I wonder if Paul Ryan has seen this photo?
(http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerLine_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f856b01a9d617b3e9)
Quote from: avonjax on August 30, 2012, 11:16:16 PM
Maybe Bain Capital needs 12 million more employees.
Don't you have a diary that needs writing in?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 30, 2012, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: avonjax on August 30, 2012, 11:16:16 PM
Maybe Bain Capital needs 12 million more employees.
Don't you have a diary that needs writing in?
I'm glad AJ is watching and reporting... I certainly have not watched a minute of it... nor will I watch any of the upcoming panderfest in S.C....lol
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 31, 2012, 06:33:34 AM
I'm glad AJ is watching and reporting... I certainly have not watched a minute of it... nor will I watch any of the upcoming panderfest in S.C....lol
They moved Charlotte? Damned socialists!
yes I do but it wouldn't tick you off and that would be a real disappointment,
Quote from: finehoe on August 31, 2012, 07:50:34 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 31, 2012, 06:33:34 AM
I'm glad AJ is watching and reporting... I certainly have not watched a minute of it... nor will I watch any of the upcoming panderfest in S.C....lol
They moved Charlotte? Damned socialists!
to be fair it is on the border and Raleigh doesn't acknowledge their existence.