kallend 1,679 #1 August 10, 2012 www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2 August 10, 2012 Quotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" If need be, after, we fix the over spending issue. Matt PS the Article is only available to registered users and subscribers, that may pose a small issue for debate.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #3 August 10, 2012 Since I have to register to actually read the article, I'll just put a short rebuttal in quotes: "The American government needs to face the harsh truth and spend fewer money"Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #4 August 10, 2012 They, of course, need to do both. The extremists here remind me of two obese people fighting over how to lose weight: "Eat less you slob!" "That's complete bullshit! Exercise is the only thing that works." "Yeah, well, it's ridiculous to get off this couch while you're eating Twinkies all the time." "Why should I eat rabbit food just because you're too lazy to get up? This is all your fault." "That's - ooohhh, American Idol is on! Pass the Cheetos." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #5 August 10, 2012 QuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" If need be, after, we fix the over spending issue. Matt PS the Article is only available to registered users and subscribers, that may pose a small issue for debate. OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be running a huge deficit. So the only really possible, significant cut is in defense. Is that what you want?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #6 August 10, 2012 QuoteSince I have to register to actually read the article, I'll just put a short rebuttal in quotes: "The American government needs to face the harsh truth and spend fewer money" Yes, cut the defense budget in half and we're getting somewhere, and still have the world's most expensive military.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #7 August 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" If need be, after, we fix the over spending issue. Matt PS the Article is only available to registered users and subscribers, that may pose a small issue for debate. OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be running a huge deficit. So the only really possible, significant cut is in defense. Is that what you want? Why not SS and DOD too? Cut the none pay out part of SS and stream line DOD's budget. Plenty in DOD to trim, BILLIONS even, beyond the Millions a month in have already suggested. IMO, it all gets a fine tooth comb. Overseas spending can be educed by probably 90%. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #8 August 11, 2012 >OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax >base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be >running a huge deficit. That's the problem. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans want to cut the deficit. But even when you look at only republicans, they do not want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security or military spending. They want to cut welfare, and foreign military aid, and NEA funding, and Amtrak, and NPR. And that does next to nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #9 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" If need be, after, we fix the over spending issue. Matt PS the Article is only available to registered users and subscribers, that may pose a small issue for debate. OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be running a huge deficit. So the only really possible, significant cut is in defense. Is that what you want? Why not SS and DOD too? Cut the none pay out part of SS and stream line DOD's budget. Plenty in DOD to trim, BILLIONS even, beyond the Millions a month in have already suggested. IMO, it all gets a fine tooth comb. Overseas spending can be educed by probably 90%. Matt Well, for starters you have tens of millions of retirees WHO VOTE and who have paid their SS tax faithfully all their working lives on the promise of a payout when they are old. The the SS trust fund is not broke anyway, and isn't projected to be for decades even if the tax or retirement age isn't raised. So SS really is not the spending problem that is causing the trouble. So sending granny to the poor house is not likely to be viewed favorably by politicians.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #10 August 11, 2012 Quote>OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax >base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be >running a huge deficit. That's the problem. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans want to cut the deficit. But even when you look at only republicans, they do not want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security or military spending. They want to cut welfare, and foreign military aid, and NEA funding, and Amtrak, and NPR. And that does next to nothing. Indeed! www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4352312;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #11 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" If need be, after, we fix the over spending issue. Matt PS the Article is only available to registered users and subscribers, that may pose a small issue for debate. OK, you cut EVERYTHING completely except Social Security (which has its own tax base anyway), Medicare (which has its own tax anyway) and DEFENSE and still be running a huge deficit. So the only really possible, significant cut is in defense. Is that what you want? Why not SS and DOD too? Cut the none pay out part of SS and stream line DOD's budget. Plenty in DOD to trim, BILLIONS even, beyond the Millions a month in have already suggested. IMO, it all gets a fine tooth comb. Overseas spending can be educed by probably 90%. Matt Well, for starters you have tens of millions of retirees WHO VOTE and who have paid their SS tax faithfully all their working lives on the promise of a payout when they are old. The the SS trust fund is not broke anyway, and isn't projected to be for decades even if the tax or retirement age isn't raised. So SS really is not the spending problem that is causing the trouble. So sending granny to the poor house is not likely to be viewed favorably by politicians. Which is why I said "none pay out part of SS." Cut the Bureaucracy, Case officers and the bene's they get, paperwork etc. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #12 August 11, 2012 QuoteThat's the problem. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans want to cut the deficit. But even when you look at only republicans, they do not want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security or military spending. They want to cut welfare, and foreign military aid, and NEA funding, and Amtrak, and NPR. And that does next to nothing. Not this American. I'd love to see defense spending cut (admittedly, the first thing on that list would be our presence in foreign countries), and I'd be first in line to be cashed out of SS and the various Medis.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 August 11, 2012 Quote Cut the Bureaucracy, Case officers and the bene's they get, paperwork etc. Easier said. eliminate all overhead and you get lottery winners collecting food stamps. Want to eliminate fraud? Then you need overhead. But that's not SS's problem and the reason for it's eventual deficits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #14 August 11, 2012 Quotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" It seems that libs are implying that we can tax our way to a balanced budget. There is a much more important question than whether taxes need to be raised. That question is: What is the ratio of spending cuts vs tax increase that you think is appropriate to mend our fiscal mess? Conservatives think that the ratio is heavily weighted toward spending cuts, even to the point that spending cuts should come first before tax increases are considered. I would like to hear what libs think. As others have said, we have much more of a spending problem than a revenue (tax) problem. It appears that libs believe, or at least assert the opposite. To the extent that taxes need to be increased, they should be less progressive - broaden the base. This should be accomplished by overall wide scope tax reform. Not very appetizing for politicians, but I think that there is actually a huge appetite for it among regular folks. The politician that expresses the real courage to take that on I think will benefit greatly. I think the same can be said for real social security and medicare reform. Many assume that part of the federal budget can't be changed, but I say it must be changed because we cannot tax our way into fixing the fiscal mess. Tax and entitlement reform are big ideas that I think have the general public, or at least conservatives, realize must happen. If a conservative makes these big ideas his major platform, then libs opposing it will look like cowards and deniers. The only part of the federal budget that has faced real scrutiny and had real programs axed is the military budget. There has been a lot of procurement reform, weapons programs terminated, base closures. There is certainly a lot of waste, but I think it is good to remember how this part of the budget has faced real scrutiny and real cuts - not the kind where a slower than planned increase is called a cut. Perhaps it is the libs plan to run up huge debt for longer, then just default on it, thereby eliminating the debt payment part of the budget. If that is their plan, they are wise to keep it secret while they continue to run up the debt, but we should then be spending the money on real infrastructure (we are not doing that now so much).People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #15 August 11, 2012 Quote Do we really need a $230 Million F-35? No we don't need them. However, when military contractors are given targets to make stealthy, maneuverable, supercruise capable (plus all the other performance targets) fighters that can operate from a carrier or land vertically, then they are going to be really really expensive. If we were willing to settle for a spruced-up F-15/16/18, that could have been much cheaper. That is a choice of what we want for capability/performance. It may be time to stop making manned aircraft to be placed in hostile environments, that is a choice that should not be blamed on the F-35. Also, without a bunch of F-35s, we will need a huge refurbish program for existing planes, or a bunch more F-22s and new F-18s or unmanned aircraft to fill in for aircraft that have to be retired. That wouldn't be super cheap either. It is easy to ridicule how much a military grade hammer or toilet seat costs, however, if it was your company that had to satisfy all the requirements of the military specification, testing, mountain of paperwork, etc. then you would also need it to be very expensive. If/when real procurement reform is able to buy a hammer from a regular hardware store, then of course it would be cheap, but then there is the risk of corruption (kickbacks) and risk of it not meeting some obscure performance requirement (low quality). Such off the shelf procurement is fairly easy for a company making cars to do, not so easy for a government's military. Hopefully we are getting toward that goal.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #16 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" It seems that libs are implying that we can tax our way to a balanced budget. . Seems to me that you have an overactive imagination.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #17 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuote Cut the Bureaucracy, Case officers and the bene's they get, paperwork etc. Easier said. eliminate all overhead and you get lottery winners collecting food stamps. Want to eliminate fraud? Then you need overhead. But that's not SS's problem and the reason for it's eventual deficits. Hence my not using "eliminate" and using "cut". MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #18 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/8df3cdee-e143-11e1-9c72-00144feab49a.html#axzz23BbefD6S "Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax" It seems that libs are implying that we can tax our way to a balanced budget. . Seems to me that you have an overactive imagination. No overactive imagination needed, it just requires removing the blinders. Libs do not want to reduce spending on almost anything besides defense, and our president says that increased taxes on the wealthy will pay for the investments in blah blah. It is clear that they think we can tax our way to a balanced budget.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #19 August 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteSince I have to register to actually read the article, I'll just put a short rebuttal in quotes: "The American government needs to face the harsh truth and spend fewer money" Yes, cut the defense budget in half and we're getting somewhere, and still have the world's most expensive military. You can take their guns from their cold dead hands.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 August 11, 2012 QuoteWell, for starters you have tens of millions of retirees WHO VOTE and who have paid their SS tax faithfully all their working lives on the promise of a payout when they are old Yep. They fell victim to a system that they could not opt out of. They were victims of a pyramid scheme that they had no choice in. I've paid plenty into Social Security and I probably will see a pennies on the dollar return. Time to end it now. QuoteThe the SS trust fund is not broke anyway, and isn't projected to be for decades even if the tax or retirement age isn't raised. It IS broke. How do we know? Because the trust fund has no money in trust. Your bank account has a higher balance than the SS Trust Fund. Because it is NOT A trust fund. Trust funds have assets in them. Those assets stay in the fund until maturity and draw interest in the interim. Every cent paid in FICA is spent the second it comes in. The Social Security Trust Fund is like referring to the DOD trust fund. How about the Foreign Aid Trust Fund? The Medicaid Trust Fund? IT's a joke. The "promises" were explained in 2000 as "claims on the treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures." The trust fund balances are bookkeeping devices that do not consist of real economic assets that can drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Back in earlier stages of the Ponzi scheme, Social Security produced surpluses that were used to fund the federal government's other things, such as by "balanced budgets" in the late 1990s. By 2010, it became a $37 billion liability that increased the government deficit. "Truth" is a nice term to obfuscate "fact." It's why bible thumpers speak of "truth" instead of "fact." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 August 11, 2012 QuoteIt IS broke. How do we know? Because the trust fund has no money in trust. Your bank account has a higher balance than the SS Trust Fund. Because it is NOT A trust fund. Trust funds have assets in them. Those assets stay in the fund until maturity and draw interest in the interim. Every cent paid in FICA is spent the second it comes in. The Social Security Trust Fund is like referring to the DOD trust fund. How about the Foreign Aid Trust Fund? The Medicaid Trust Fund? IT's a joke. The "promises" were explained in 2000 as "claims on the treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures." The trust fund balances are bookkeeping devices that do not consist of real economic assets that can drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Back in earlier stages of the Ponzi scheme, Social Security produced surpluses that were used to fund the federal government's other things, such as by "balanced budgets" in the late 1990s. By 2010, it became a $37 billion liability that increased the government deficit. "Truth" is a nice term to obfuscate "fact." It's why bible thumpers speak of "truth" instead of "fact." Speaking of facts, when are you planning on presenting some in your baseless rhetoric? Your post is truthy, not truthful. Disregarding the possibility that you're intentionally lying in your post, you either don't understand Social Security or you don't understand Ponzi schemes, because the former is not an example of the latter. Educate yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/social-security-0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/2011/08/25/gIQA2t0dcL_blog.html http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/On-the-Economy/2011/0913/No-social-security-is-not-a-ponzi-schemeMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 August 11, 2012 There's rhetoric on all sides. Stating that it shares nothing in common is also ridiculous. The Ponzi is based upon paying higher than market returns by those paying in recently paying off those who invested early. I'm noticing that the key difference indicated it that "Ponzi schemes have exponential growth but Social Security does not." "Social security only gives a 700% rate of return." I think it was kallend years ago mentioning that stat or something similar. 7% per year or something to that effect. Vastly in excess of market rate. What does a Ponzi scheme share with Social Security? That when there are not enough new payors into the system, it cannot sustain itself and cannot pay on its promises. These articles all seem to accept that there is no "trust fund" to be solvent but instead explain that it is not a Ponzi scheme because, well, a Ponzi scheme is illegal, and a Ponzi needs exponential growh of investors. And a Ponzi scheme has never lasted 75 years, so don't worry. The color purple is bad but SS is violet, and there's a huge difference. I put opinion. I also put fact. Fact - there is no "trust fund." Opinion - SS is a pay-as-you-go system that relies upon an increase in payors to maintain viability as payees increase. Form whatever opinions you like. But guys like Simpson and Bowles are concerned. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 August 11, 2012 QuoteStating that it shares nothing in common is also ridiculous. True enough. However, claiming that SS has characteristics sufficient to equate it to a Ponzi scheme is dishonest. QuoteI'm noticing that the key difference indicated it that "Ponzi schemes have exponential growth but Social Security does not." True. Quote"Social security only gives a 700% rate of return." I think it was kallend years ago mentioning that stat or something similar. I'm not aware of anyone claiming SS gives a 700% return. Quote7% per year or something to that effect. On average, over it's lifetime. QuoteVastly in excess of market rate. Market rates have not always been so low as they currently are. SS is a long term investment, and as such, comparing its average rate of return to current market rates is meaningless. QuoteWhat does a Ponzi scheme share with Social Security? That when there are not enough new payors into the system, it cannot sustain itself and cannot pay on its promises. Yes, but there is a significant difference in the definition of "not enough new payors" for SS and a Ponzi scheme. QuoteI put opinion. I also put fact. Fact - there is no "trust fund." False. Trust Fund Investment Holdings See this also.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #24 August 12, 2012 So Bush was lying when he claimed the market would give retirees a better return than SS, in his attempt to justify privatizing it. Thanks for letting us know.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #25 August 12, 2012 Quote I'm noticing that the key difference indicated it that "Ponzi schemes have exponential growth but Social Security does not." "Social security only gives a 700% rate of return." I think it was kallend years ago mentioning that stat or something similar. 7% per year or something to that effect. Vastly in excess of market rate. Negative. The market has historically returned 10-12% and that's far, FAR better than SS. SS also has the new historic honor of paying out less than than what people put in ( http://moneyland.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/ ) and it's only going to get worse from there. SS is not a good retirement plan, and it won't be long before its a complete wash.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
