- #316
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
If that were actually the case then there would be no threat to either from forcing the federal government cease borrowing any more money. And this statement:turbo-1 said:
would have no grounds.
If that were actually the case then there would be no threat to either from forcing the federal government cease borrowing any more money. And this statement:turbo-1 said:SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. ...
would have no grounds."I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,"
But the US has not cut defense spending accordingly. It should.CAC1001 said:... Remember too that the U.S. already halved the size of the Navy after the Soviet Union broke up, ...
Source please.turbo-1 said:SS is self-funded. The money being paid for by payroll taxes adds to the surplus, and the government borrows those funds with interest being paid back by the bonds (promise to pay). ...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.htmlmheslep said:Source please.
Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.SixNein said:He put entitlement programs on the table...
Did you read it?turbo-1 said:
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983
turbo-1 said:Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.
I had to get out of paper-making by age 46. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull of another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.
There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.
How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.WhoWee said:He is offering specific solutions to a problem. My guess is most everyone under the age of 55 already expect to retire at a later age.
turbo-1 said:How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.
If you are an old guy that has run paving machines or has laid and finished concrete all your life, can you be expected to hold such demanding jobs until you are 70? That is unrealistic, as anybody who has done such work can tell you. His "plan" is a way to marginalize and punish older workers.
As I have explained countless times, we can make SS solvent into the foreseeable future simply by raising the cap on the amount of income that will be subject to payroll withholding. There is no need to slash grandma's benefits or force older people in demanding jobs to work longer. The GOP and their media sponsors (FOX and right-wing hate-radio) love to make this situation look very complex and incomprehensible, but the situation is very simple and easy to understand. SS is NOT in trouble if adults are in charge. SS is in trouble if people allow the GOP to play Chicken Little and actually believe the lies.
Quite honestly, your last several posts look liketurbo-1 said:As I have explained countless time
But surely this is a problem with every pension system. Those who die young subsidize those who live long. Life insurance works the other way so there's some compensation there. Anyway, as it is, if a person is truly disabled, they get the SS payout without reaching the retirement age.turbo-1 said:Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.
So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.turbo-1 said:Yes, and note that they said "non-interest income". Treasury bonds, which form the holdings of the SSA fund, pay interest.
mheslep said:Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.
SixNein said:
The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.Slate said:...In the end, Obama only feinted at entitlement reform, mentioning no specifics...
WhoWee said:I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?
mheslep said:So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.
You know what I meant. You're trolling.OmCheeto said:Obama's influence, I would say, begins quite a while before I had ever heard of him. I hear he made a very nice speech during some Democratic convention, back when I thought I had lost all hope in the American political process.
I'm talking about what you posted. It's your graph. Your prediction. Again, you're trolling here.As an armchair quarterback, I can tell you that the last tweny years are much easier to analyze than the next 10. But I have faith in our youth.
Except that several years of Obama is also history - are you not figuring on that? Are you blaming Bush and Reagan for that? This is what I tried to ascertain with my previous questions, to which you responded with trolling.10 of those years have yet to happen, so those are just fantasy. 20 of those years are now history. They are the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush history.
It's in the quote I posted above. Here it is again: "The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now." The graph clearly shows substantial debt accumulated before Reagan took office, when Clinton was in office and since Obama took office, yet you are claiming the debt is Reagan and Bush's fault only.No, and if I've spouted out some schizophrenic blather in the past, that would make you think that my mind works that way, please point out my previous posts.
So then assuming your numbers are correct, the "debt level" is roughly half due to what happened over the past 30 years; of Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. Right?!?Our debt to GDP was ~31% when Reagan took office, and it was ~65% when G.H.W.Bush left.
Yes, it's certainly a propaganda slam. It twists the reality that it ain't just your house that's at risk, it's your kids. The choice isn't your wife vs your house, it's more like your wife vs your kids. Worse, everyone seems to agree the kids are at risk and so far, Obama's sacrificed the kids in a failed attempt to help the wife. So in the end, he's losing both.No, as I've said before, when your wife is sick in the hospital with cancer, you mortgage the house to save her.
If you don't, then you didn't really care about her.
This might strike you as some type of sick Gingrich type of Democratic slam.
And I suppose, it really is.
mheslep said:The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.
WhoWee said:I like Tom Coburn's attitude - not likely to go anywhere - but it shines the light into some dark spots - show large adjustments are possible.
http://chippewa.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_2c19d44b-095c-529a-ad62-5ebc6eb367e1.html
"One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets. "
daveb said:While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.
daveb said:While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.
WhoWee said:It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?
SixNein said:One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.
SixNein said:I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.
SixNein said:I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.
I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.
WhoWee said:Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"
Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."
Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.
WhoWee said:You do recall the President's budget was voted down?
WhoWee said:Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"
Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."
Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.
In order for your condition to be considered severe, it must interfere with your ability to perform basic work-related activities. Basic work-related activities include things such as exerting yourself physically (walking, carrying, climbing stairs, etc.), tolerating certain environmental conditions (temperature extremes, noise, vibrations), maintaining concentration and attention, understanding, remembering and carrying out instructions, responding appropriately to other people, coping with change, etc.
SixNein said:http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm
These sources indicate the following:
I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).SixNein said:I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.
mheslep said:I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).
Yes ...WhoWee said:...
According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."