Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The problem isn't what we are collecting...the problem is what we are spending.> Wahoo, I know you're a thoughtful guy, but I'm afraid you just spouted a talking point. The problem is both. They are not mutually exclusive. We don't have to go too far back in our recent history to see how to balance the budget. We do need to raise taxes. We need to raise them back to the (completely non-onerous) 90's levels. We added a hell of a lot MORE jobs in the 90's than we did under Bush, so this idea that the 90's rates are bad for job creation and Bush's rates are good for it is belied by our own recent history. Yet, Republicans keep spouting this as though it were fact, and aren't called on it NEARLY enough by a lazy media. We should start with those making over $250,000 (a lot more than just the 50 richest people, and that WOULD make a dent). Ultimately, and this is something no pol likes to say, but ultimately we'll have to raise them on the middle class as well. I think there's a case to be made for not raising them while the economy remains so tough for so many in the middle class, and raising them only after the economy rebounds some more. But those making over 250K could kick in now and not feel too much pain - and even they won't have to do so till 2013 at the earliest anyway. Once you've gone back to the 90's levels of taxation (yes, for everyone - it's the closest we've come in recent history to the "sweet spot" of taxing neither too much nor too little), you can investigate simplifying the tax code in a revenue-neutral way that (at its best) would lower rates in general but eliminate the sort of loopholes that allow Warren Buffet's secretary to pay more taxes than he does, and GE to pay none at all on 14B profits. But first get the tax revenues coming in in general, because that's a multi-year project. Next step: defense. We're paying hugely more for defense than we did just 10 years ago, and that's not even counting the wars. And it's nuts: we have cold-war era weapons systems eating up billions when we don't live in that world any more. Defense contractors have very cleverly positioned themselves into just about every congressional district in the nation, so that cuts are always seen as harmful to just about ANY congresscritter's district. Well, too bad. We're never going to get serious about cutting the national debt until we rationalize the defense department. If we can go back to 90's levels of taxes, and 90's levels of defense spending (or dare we hope, below), that's the lion's share of our problem right there. After that, look at health care. The Ryan plan to turn seniors over to the mercy of the private insurance industry and give them a freaking coupon that won't pay nearly enough for them to GET insurance is a non-starter. It also does nothing to reduce health care costs. Ultimately, the best way to deal with medicare/medicaid and all health care costs is the politically "impossible" route of a single-payer system. It's the reason other countries better us on health care outcomes at a far lower cost. We need to work towards that if we're serious. Social security should be farther down the list, as it's solvent for a while now, and can be extended with some fairly easy tweaks, as was done in both the 80's and 90's. It's really far behind revenues (taxes), defense, and health care costs, and don't believe those who try to demagogue it with the goal of privatizing it. There. Actual solutions. Kevin or whoever may not like those solutions, but that's fine; we can have that debate. But "don't tax the rich because they work harder than you do?" That's neither solution nor even true.
Originally Posted By Tony C <<We should start with those making over $250,000 (a lot more than just the 50 richest people, and that WOULD make a dent).>> I'd lower it to $200,000 or even $150,000.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't doubt the validity of entitlement programs...I doubt their sustainability. In 1950 there were about 3.5 million beneficiaries of SS to the tune of about $961 million dollars. In 2008 there were nearly 51 million beneficiaries to the tune of $615 billion. People are living longer, the workforce is shrinking. It simply isn't sustainable which is quite obvious until politics enters the equation. And that is just one program. And, of course we are spending $687 billion on defense spending. Frankly, everything needs to be on the table in times like these.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Here is my solution. I would gladly hand over additional tax dollars IF the government agrees to not grow spending any futher and, in fact, reduce spending. Raising taxes would certainly lower the amount of money contributing to the growing debt...but it even begin to fill the hole. According to the Fed there is approximately $8.3 trillion dollars in US cash floating around the world (most of it in banks and overseas). This is actual US money. We are over $14.26 trillion in debt. I agree with you Dabob...tax more, spend less on everything from Social Security and Defense to Medicare and the White House M&Ms and we are still going to be struggling to get out of this mess.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Will you people PLEASE stop calling Social Security and Medicare "entitlement" programs! They are INSURANCE programs! They are NOT giveaway programs! Farm subsidies -- which Michelle Bachmann has taken for years, btw -- are entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare are not.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper That seems to be what most everyone calls those programs, including the Associated Press.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<People are living longer, the workforce is shrinking. It simply isn't sustainable which is quite obvious until politics enters the equation.>> Quick question for you: Do you like Ryan's plan of cutting off Medicare as it currently exists for those under 55 years of age, forcing them to accept vouchers when they turn 65? Personally, I have a huge problem with this plan. I'm 54 years old. I missed the cut-off by one lousy year. I've been working for over 36 years, since high school graduation. I worked while earning both my B.A. and M.A., and have paid plenty into FICA and Medicare these past three decades. But because I'm one freakin' year short of Ryan's arbitrary 55 years and older cut-off, I'm going to be screwed out of Medicare and tossed to the wolves of the for-profit private insurance companies. If you take someone who went straight into college out of high school and didn't begin working until after getting their diploma, at the age of 22, who's now 55 years old but has only paid into the system for 33 years, they will be sitting pretty, even though they didn't pay into the system as long as someone like me has. How is this even remotely fair to folks like me, in our early fifties, who've been paying into the system for over 30 years but aren't quite old enough to satisfy the GOP gasbags like Ryan? If these vultures truly want to be fair in dismantling and privatizing SSA and Medicare, they need to lower the cut-off age into the thirties. Screwing over folks in their forties and early fifties is crap. Which, of course, is the main goal here. It's not about trying to "fix" SSA and Medicare. It's about dismantling it. And creating this arbitrary 55 years and older cut-off is all about the political demographic. Those are the folks who mostly vote Republican. Those under 55 years are where the Democrats live. What a surprise.
Originally Posted By Tony C Once again skinner you have nailed it. Have you ever thought of a blog? More people need to hear or read what you write.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<That seems to be what most everyone calls those programs, including the Associated Press.>> Because the Republicans own the news cycles. It's how they shape and reshape the dialogue. They know if they keep calling them "entitlement programs" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... the unwashed masses will eventually come to accept them as true entitlement programs, and as a result, come to despise them, because an entitlement program is a giveaway program, which most Americans hate. It's right out of the GOP playbook: get the public to accept Social Security and Medicare as entitlement programs -- giveaway programs -- which we cannot allow to exist for our nation to survive the long haul. Then the voters will finally support politicians who want to eliminate them. Mission accomplished.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks, Tony. I have written blogs in the past, but they require tons of focused energy I have to put elsewhere. Writing on LP is something I don't do everyday. With blogs, you need to write that often, to keep your readers coming back to the site.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<There. Actual solutions. Kevin or whoever may not like those solutions, but that's fine; we can have that debate.>> Bingo. Excellent post again, Dabob. Right on the mark.
Originally Posted By Tony C <<Because the Republicans own the news cycles. It's how they shape and reshape the dialogue>> So the "left wing media" is about as real as unicorns?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If we can go back to 90's levels of taxes, and 90's levels of defense spending (or dare we hope, below), that's the lion's share of our problem right there.>> It's a HUGE share of our problem. Taking the nation back to pre-Reagan level of taxation will solve so many problems, especially for the corporate execs who didn't take tens of millions in salaries each because the tax man took most of it. That money instead got plowed back into the company in R&D and expansion. Which of course, meant more jobs. We need to return to the mindset where tax breaks and subsidies are only the corporations that create jobs and stimulate the economy, not offshore the jobs and bring the economy to its knees. As for the DoD... the pre-Reagan military didn't heavily rely on contractors doing non-combat jobs, which is where most of the Pentagon money black hole resides. The soldiers, sailors, and airmen did those tasks, for far less cost. Wanna save plenty of tax dollars? Shrink the sizes of our overseas bases, pull us out of the wars, ditch the private contractors and have military personnel return to those jobs. The savings would be ENORMOUS. We're talking hundreds of billions here. But that solution is not on the table. Why? Sure, it wouldn't be easy to implement, but it would be far more sustainable for the long haul than what we currently have. It's definitely worth doing. But too many politicians, mostly Republican along with many Dems, depend upon the military industrial complex in their districts and states, and refuse to discuss this issue in earnest. But as Dabob pointed out, it's one of the best solutions for our debt problem. Pre-Reagan tax rates and military size/scope. We need to do this or our country is going to eventually fall, like Imperial Rome.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<So the "left wing media" is about as real as unicorns?>> Other than the pundits on MSNBC, name me one prime time "left wing media" pundit. Just one. They're either right wing like Fox News, or centrist like Anderson Cooper and George Stephanopolous. "Left wing media" is The Daily Show. And that's not really news. (Although they do a much better job of reporting actual news than most news bureaus.)
Originally Posted By fkurucz "Will you people PLEASE stop calling Social Security and Medicare "entitlement" programs! They are INSURANCE programs!" Correct. About 15% of everyone's income goes into this program and everyone who pays in is a beneficiary. The whole canard that SS is "welfare" is being foisted upon us so that it can be dismantled. And to anyone who thinks that the payroll tax will go away with SS, I have a bridge to sell you. The payroll tax won't go away. It will probably be used to finance more wars.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "It's right out of the GOP playbook: get the public to accept Social Security and Medicare as entitlement programs -- giveaway programs -- which we cannot allow to exist for our nation to survive the long haul. Then the voters will finally support politicians who want to eliminate them. Mission accomplished." Bingo.
Originally Posted By Tony C <<Other than the pundits on MSNBC, name me one prime time "left wing media" pundit. Just one. They're either right wing like Fox News, or centrist like Anderson Cooper and George Stephanopolous.>> I agree with you. I should have made a statement instead of asking a question. That was my bad.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ***<<Because the Republicans own the news cycles. It's how they shape and reshape the dialogue>> So the "left wing media" is about as real as unicorns? *** It depends. The media is free to support abortion and gay rights, as it had no meaningful effect on Corporate America's or Wall Street's bottom line. But the stuff that the Vampire Squid really does care about ... the MSM does exactly what their paymasters want. Witness how the Wisconsin no bid sales of public property bill was buried by the MSM, which proceeded to demonize Wisconsin school teachers instead.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<That was my bad.>> No, Tony, your statement was fine. I was just going into my automatic pre-emptive strike mode for those posters who traditionally saunter into threads like this and regurgitate their right wing talking points about the "liberal media." You're correct... they're about as rare as unicorns.
Originally Posted By hopemax I don't think many people have really thought about how the elimination of Social Security and Medicare will really affect them. Retirement is really a new-fangled idea. For kicks, I looked up the etymology. The first use was 1648, retiree not until 1945. We act like it should be an easy and usual thing for people to save up enough money to finance the years when they no longer work, but until the last 70 years only the super rich would have even dreamed of such a thing. Instead, they lived with their children or they died. And if we take the social systems away; that's right where we will end up. Are you okay taking on the burden of paying for your parent's housing, food, medical care for the next 20 years? If not, are you okay watching them die an early death because of inadequate medical care, nutrition, etc? Will these be cheaper options than your FICA taxes? And because the plans to slash these programs don't affect those over the age of 55. It's really not that likely that we will end up in THAT scenario. No, the more likely scenario is: Are you okay with the idea that your children will be responsible for taking on the cost of your medical care, shelter, nutrition, etc; and the negative impact that will have on their ability to save for their own future? If you don't have anyone who is willing to provide for you, are you okay with the idea that you will be destitute and have a shorter life expectancy? We can all pretend that we're in the top 5 or 10% that might be able to squirrel away enough money to cover the costs, but I think most of us are deluding ourselves. Markets crash, prices rise, resources become scarce. Are you sure you can account for all the variables when building your portfolio?
