Post #266,243
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
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.
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 #266,277
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
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.
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 #266,290
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
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.
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 #266,300
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.
|
|
