You must be a Republican

Post #266,074

8/28/06 2:06:06 PM

This is actually the message that Bush has been hammering re: social security and medicare since before he was elected. Of course, he was accused, as is standard, of spreading FUD about the future of entitlements.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,106

by lincoln

8/28/06 3:23:16 PM

And interest on the National Debt is not mandatory?

How much will the interest be for the $2.4 trillion dollars that Shrub has added to the National Debt in just the past 6 years? What will it be for the estimated $600 billion dollars that he'll add to the debt in his last 2 years in office? If we can't pay it, guess where our economy will be headed?

lincoln

"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow

Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.

[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]

Post #266,113

by bepatient

8/28/06 3:28:29 PM

What he's done in the past 2 years

is meaningless and trivial compared to the issue of entitlements.

We can grow through deficit spending on non-entitlements, zero debt is not mandatory.

We cannot grow the economy fast enough to keep up with entitlement growth. It isn't possible. >that< is the real issue.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,115

by Silverlock

8/28/06 3:32:36 PM

So raise the cutoff.

-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.

Post #266,116

by lincoln

8/28/06 3:33:43 PM

Beep says:

zero debt is not mandatory

How about "debt REDUCTION for starters? How about a government living within its means? You do it (I think) so why can't they?

I hope that you're including the budget for the Pentagon in the word "entitlements", cause we can't grow the economy fast enough to keep up with what they're spending either!

Post #266,123

by bepatient

8/28/06 3:51:32 PM

Check your numbers

Spending on major entitlements (SS, Medicare) FAR exceeds military spending. [link|http://seekerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/_research_features_issues_charts_Defense_Defense2_l-tm.jpg|Graph]

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,157

by JayMehaffey

8/28/06 5:15:36 PM

US budget is nearly useless

The US governments budgets and accounting are terribly bad. Not only are the basic accounting practices awful, to the point of being illegal if it was a corporation, but there is a healthy layer of outright falsehood layered on top.

For instance, how much of the US military budget is spent building and maintaining our arsenel of nuclear weapons? None. All of the money for nukes is accounted against the Department of Energy and not included in the government accounting of military expenses.

The end result of this is that the offical figures that put military expenses at about 20% can be ignored. Depending on how you do the accounting the figures range from 30% to 50%.

Here is a fairly good, if very anti-war page that talks about this [link|http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm|WarResisters.org].

Jay

Post #266,184

by bepatient

8/28/06 6:56:37 PM

Nice use of statistics.

using 80% of debt service and including in in the military. Fabulous.

No matter how you want to try and fudge factor otherwise...entitlements (non-discretionary spending..which does include vet benefits) is magnitudes higher than defense spending..even if you add builing nukes.

You can't slice and dice your way out of it.

AND, we can stop building nukes tomorrow. We can close military bases. We cannot cut off granny's doctor and her ss payments. And those payments are going to grow faster than the economy...while defense spending has been shrinking versus the economy since ww2.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,198

by warmachine

8/28/06 7:57:21 PM

Wot, no sarcasm sign?

Do you honestly believe, with the 'war on terror', that the US Congress would cut military spending ahead of social services? Will enough Congessmen risk the label of unpatriotic? Will enough of the electorate say that safety is not worth grannies suffering? Will the welfare recipients create enough national fuss to make the public rethink? Will the de facto state of war end in the near future?

Matthew Greet

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.

Post #266,204

by bepatient

8/28/06 9:34:26 PM

You seem to not understand

the boys in congress CANNOT stop paying for the "social services". Entitlements are named aptly.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,209

by warmachine

8/28/06 9:42:35 PM

Who says so? Congress. Who will demonstrate if they renege?

As welfare isn't a constitutionally protected right, it was legislated in and it can be legislated out. As boxley says, mandatory is relative.

Post #266,227

by bepatient

8/29/06 12:06:13 AM

It is not that simple

your protestations to the opposite notwithstanding.

But it is a nice attempt at obfuscation.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,236

by warmachine

8/29/06 2:38:42 AM

Then explain it!

Post #266,241

by bepatient

8/29/06 7:14:35 AM

Its not relevent, so no.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,243

by imric

8/29/06 7:21:54 AM

Everybody who has paid into SS.

Everybody with little or nothing set aside for old age.

Everybody with no disability insurance.

The elderly.

The poor.

It would be political death for the individuals and parties that tried it.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,250

by warmachine

8/29/06 8:41:40 AM

Thank you for doing what bepatient has refused

When a budget crunch happens, at least one of three things must happen to varying degrees. The backlash that I see is:-

1. Raise taxes - the employed, businesses and economists denounce this as stupid and make a monumental fuss. The appropriate Congressman are labelled as damaging the economy.
2. Cut military spending - the military, the Senate, the President and administration denounce this as damaging to the war on terror. The media, with Fox in particular, label the appropriate Congressman as undermining national safety and drown out any sensible debate.
3. Cut social services - the poor and elderly, as you identify, demonstrate. The media label the appropriate Congressman as heartless and picking on the weak.

All three are politically damaging but when the budget reaches the point where the problem cannot be ignored, it becomes a question of which is the least politically damaging. Could I imagine the US electorate thinking "I'm prepared to have less money to maintain welfare." or "A greater risk of terrorism is no excuse to let the poor and elderly suffer."? No. I envisage marginal military cuts at best. Taxes, especialy for the purposes of wealth redistribution, are unamerican. That leaves least worst action.

Unless you are arguing 3 would create more shouting than 1 or 2.

Post #266,277

by bepatient

8/29/06 12:28:34 PM

What was the point?

What started the discussion?

Levels of spending.

So you insisting that I dive into your land of make-believe served no purpose to further any point being made, save yours.

Option 1 WILL HAPPEN. Regardless of what you term "the fuss". first step will be to eliminate the FICA cap. I expect this to occur in the next 10 years. That will equate to a 0% impact on anyone earning 90k or less...and a 0-8% impact on people making more than this. I expect this to happen under democratic leadership.

Option 2, as I explained, has already been happening on a percentage basis for 60 years. Whether you think so or not, even with the "billions" that are passed around by the press...in the grand scale this war isn't really costing us that much in "benchmark" terms (vietnam, WW2, Korea). Remember that US GDP is 12 TRILLION and growing at 3-5% a year. Regardless of this, the US government could zero spending on all programs except SS, Medicare and interest coverage...and would still be broke in 2050 (given CBO projections).

Option 3 will also happen to varying degrees. However, the way these items were legislated leaves the current politicos extremely little power over their continued existance. These programs cannot simply be "erased", (again, your protestations to the contrary noted, though incorrect). The agency proscribes benefits to be administered. The trust is held and accounted at Public Debt away from general funds. There is no way, none, that a majority vote would make it through that would dissolve the program. (it would benefit me and many here greatly, though).

What will happen. Benefits will be delayed...making people work longer before their SS payments are received. They will eventually establish means testing so that Bill Gates and his friends will not qualify for benefits. etc.

The problem is, it is extremely likely given our government's inability to do things right, that these changes will be made so late in the game that we will still run the risk of economic collapse.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,289

by warmachine

8/29/06 2:03:15 PM

A counter argument, at last

Not being American it is entirely possible that my analysis of US culture or budget is incorrect. Your explanations do change the basis of my analysis.

So, welfare spending dwarfs military spending so much that zero military spending still wouldn't solve the problem. Alas, a 0-8% tax on the rich, locking out of the rich and delaying payment is nowhere near enough $80 trillion either. Ouch!

That strikes me that the military won't be heavily cut as there's little point in fighting a hard, political battle that still won't solve the problem. A combination of tax and welfare cuts, then. Since the budget continues to be out of balance with no effort to fix that, by the time action is taken, a workable tax raise on a $12 trillion economy isn't going to cover it. Double ouch!

That leaves the economic-collapsing tax, as you say, or cutting welfare. Both a working economy and a working welfare are mandatory. Mandatory is relative. Which will cause the least riots? I can't see welfare surviving.

Post #266,290

by imric

8/29/06 2:08:09 PM

Heehee.

As I understand it, there are more 'elderly' voters than any other block. Hell, the younger set are so disillusioned, they don't vote at all.

Cut SS? Cut Medicare?

Not happening.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,294

by warmachine

8/29/06 2:32:27 PM

Even the middle aged?

With military cuts not being enough, as bepatient points out, that leaves tax raises and welfare cuts, pitting the working population against the elderly. The elderly will outvote everyone else, even the middle aged, you say? Tyranny by the politically active elderly, jealously guarding their pension. Better than theocracy, I suppose.

Post #266,300

by imric

8/29/06 3:51:11 PM

Yup.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,257

by JayMehaffey

8/29/06 10:19:23 AM

Sigh

I knew I shouldn't have used that link, but I didn't have a better one handy. And yes, attributing 80% of the national debt cost to the military is very high. But your missing the point. The current government accounting attributes none of it to the military, which is obviously even more wrong headed.

No matter how you want to try and fudge factor otherwise...entitlements (non-discretionary spending..which does include vet benefits) is magnitudes higher than defense spending..even if you add builing nukes.

Even if you accept the governments figures non-military spending is only 4 times military spending. Given a more realistic figure, military spending is around 1/3, entitlements are around 1/3, payments on our debt is about 10% and the other 25% or so is everything else.

Jay

Post #266,131

by imric

8/28/06 4:04:14 PM

Great. So starvation and plague is mandatory.

And our 'great' economy can only take care of the wealthy. These 'entitlements' are NOT luxuries for the bulk of the people.

What you are saying is, we're doomed, and that revolution and death is coming.

Remember this; starving and hopeless people are NOT nice. When the choices are plague and/or famine and fighting for relief, the American people are not likely to sit in their homes and quietly let family members suffer and die. The wealthy simply don't want to see this reality; it's not PERSONAL for them. They see what they want to see - and what they see is that concentrating wealth at the top, in their own hands, is a moral act that helps the lower classes. You know - like the slaveholders putting slaves in poorly made, drafty housing because it was somehow 'good for' tuberculosis.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,136

by Another Scott

8/28/06 4:16:56 PM

There's another way.

If Social Security and Medicare were treated as a safety net rather than part of everyone's retirement, then the problem would be a lot smaller.

Of course, the problem would be a lot smaller too if everyone didn't live so long. If/when our population stabilizes, it should become more managable if people can and do work a substantial portion of their lives. The American Dream of retiring at 65 and living to be 90 isn't economically sustainable under the present system.

There's a fundamental unfairness about the taxation of the present system. There should be more means-testing and the taxable income cap should be raised if they really want to get the system under control. As it is, I think we all know that nothing will be done unless there's a crisis, and when that crisis comes there will probably be a lot of other problems that have to be dealt with, so even then I wouldn't expect big changes.

A solution that may present itself, and one that doesn't have as much risk politically (compared to overt cuts or overt tax increases) is: They decide to end automatic COLAs, and inflation is allowed to go to 7-10+% again, then that 20-30 year problem suddenly starts to look like less of a problem (future dollars are much cheaper). Of course, it would be a disaster for the economy, but hey...

:-(

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #266,140

by bepatient

8/28/06 4:27:17 PM

It has nothing to do with class

Rich people are not causing it to happen. The wealthy can take care of themselves (and can't opt out of these mandatory government payments, even if they wanted).

Concentration of wealth is a separate issue. Not as disastrous to the economy as much as it is an issue of social divisiveness.

Modifications must be made. If their not, they we will be dealing with those "not nice" starving and hopeless people.

I can only tell you that I have not, at any time, expected to receive anything from SS or Medicare. I have expected it to collapse and have made all my retirement plans accordingly.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,145

by imric

8/28/06 4:44:22 PM

Oh, aye.

They are not causing SS to have a limited lifespan - but they ARE straining the social fabric of this country by actively concentrating all money at 'the top'. The poor do NOT have the discretionary cash to put away enough to live at even poverty levels after they 'retire'/become unemployable. The wealthy DO. Lessee - who are gung-ho about scrapping (not revamping, not making ancillary) sabotaging or raiding SS? Let me give you a hint: it AIN'T the poor. No, the poor aren't hungry enough to COMPLETELY suicide in their old age for 'bread today'. Not yet.

Not YET.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,154

by bepatient

8/28/06 5:07:45 PM

Regardless of who is trying to "insert your verb here"

this doesn't change the simple fact that, in current form, SS will not survive.

Scrap it or fix it are the options.

And as I said, the wealthy, who don't need it, can't opt out of the benefits. >that in itself< would be a start.

Changing the funding structure would also be necessary. Investing in something that compounds the growth at more than 2% is necessary...or it will die.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,122

by imric

8/28/06 3:49:33 PM

Not quite.

Bush wanted to use SS to pump large amounts of cash into the stock markets, handled by amateur investors (the public) so that the economy would look good while he was in office. You know, like Reagan (when he got banks to open credit purse-strings for the masses). With Reagan, there was hell to pay later, and the fallout is STILL occurring. If Bush ever gets his way with SS, the results are likely to be FAR worse. Like it or not, SS & Medicare are still the ONLY real net under the lower classes; Bush's actions would GUT that, and we'd see far more handicapped and seriously ill people on the street, starving and dying. Then we'd need some OTHER system, more poorly devised in a time of extremes.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,125

by bepatient

8/28/06 3:55:29 PM

Proposals versus message

That was what was proposed...not the message. The message has been consistent in that >something< must be done because the system is not sustainable. and in response to Bush's proposal (bad or good) was a resounding "you can't do that" with not a single alternative proposal from the opposition. All that was done was the standard "rove is the antichrist trying to scare the old people about their benefits" speech (which apparently still gets traction by Bill Maher on HBO).

When are they gonna find someone else to blame for their incapability to compete, I wonder.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,189

by tonytib

8/28/06 7:10:03 PM

SS is a scam (giant Ponzi scheme)

Post #266,203

by imric

8/28/06 9:24:38 PM

That HAS benefited many worthy people.

I personally have a good friend for which it is a true lifeline.

Medicare, too.

We can do better with it, I'm sure.

Hell - let's do away with SS tax altogether, and just print the currency as needed. That would devalue the currency by the exact amount of the cost of SS, effectively taxing everybody equally.

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #266,205

by bepatient

8/28/06 9:35:57 PM

While sarcastic

it probably has crossed the minds of politicians everywhere.

I've no faith in either party to fix it...it will be the downfall of this empire.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #266,207

by boxley

8/28/06 9:41:48 PM

no one has the balls to declare it old folks welfare

needs based. If I fall disabled I would be getting 1180 a month. That doesnt cover the house pmt so would need to trailerize real fast. Folks with no dependants that have income of 60k plus annually dont "need" the extra 12k or so. But they consider it an annuity and would stalk washington with guns in order to keep collecting it. This is why all older folks (myself included) need to learn spanish.
thanx,
bill

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Post #266,306

by Ashton

8/29/06 4:03:21 PM

'Doesn\ufffdt anything socialistic make you want to throw up? -

Like great public schools or health insurance for all?"

--Kurt Vonnegut

Welcome to IWETHEY!