On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:21:59 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:35:23 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:38:38 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:25:37 -0800, wrote:

Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are
unsustainable?

Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem.
It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the
long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but
that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep
enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit
reduction amount a short while ago.

$1.1T is trivial compared to the problem. That barely covers where we
are now and there are only a small fraction of the boomers on the
public dole. If he can't touch the current deficit, how will he handle
the hockey stick that is in the next decade?
I don't think the GOP is really talking about it either.

They're talking about when it suits them. Sessions was talking about
it along with the rest of the right-wing nuts. They would love to gut
all the social programs. I'd say that it's in their DNA, except they
don't believe in science.

I have said many times the GOP doesn't want to address this either.
If they cut every dime out of the discretionary budget it would not
cover the deficit in the very early out years.

Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed
would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting
cutting would be miniscule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I agree. You just asked what we could do without.
The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the
entitlements.

So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes
are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either.




We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding
entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week,
Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded
pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is
80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same
deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell
them.

Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term
problem.

Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it
but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem.
If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it
would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have
killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated
all of their companies.

The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M
people vs 400!

I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net
worth it is about 1.5 trillion.

And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would
be too much to handle for them, apparently.


That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft
stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty
fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust
fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few
years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to
get it out and spend it.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what?

Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover.

So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that
important? It isn't.


That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could
certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off
pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in.
We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support
the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You
still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person.

Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top
earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time.

I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We
simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number
of workers.
The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and
trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately
business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by
rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll,
lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real
age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These
people are also taking their SS at 62.

It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty
of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow
damaging to the system. It isn't.

That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the
number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for
it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the
door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I
will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money
into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke,
throwing it back on the government.

I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me
you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits.