On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:01 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote:

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 managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the
department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of
carbon free energy.

And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't
want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense.

The only serious nuclear accident we ever had was on the Department of
Energy's watch (Carter Administration)
We did a lot better when it was being watched by an agency that ONLY
regulated nukes, (the AEC) not the huge bureaucracy Carter invented.


Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.

DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.



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.


They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit.

It would go a long way toward doing just that.

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.


The real question is how many of those people would actually pay that
tax. The really rich people would find a way to shelter that income.
When you hear those stories about Eisenhower's 90% tax rate, you don't
hear about all the tax shelters that kept anyone from actually paying
that rate. Reagan was the one who removed the lion's share of those
shelters, in the 1986 rewrite of the tax code.

As long as rich people pay for our elections they will not pay the
taxes you think they should pay.

What??? Pay for our elections? Talk to the Supreme Court. The
right-wing on that court has decided the corps are people.


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.

Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now
and things are not looking better in the out years without some
serious changes.

It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to
the 1940s.

In the 40s we were the engine of manufacturing for the world. Right
now we import a lot more than we make. 24% of our GDP is simply
reselling Chinese goods. Where is this new prosperity going to come
from?

So, you didn't address the question. We're not going back on any level
to 1940-something.

(that is from a study from Harry's alma mater Yale)


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.

We are already in trouble.

We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing
fear bs.

Oh you believe in the trust fund myth?
Very few economists agree with you.

Really? Unfortunately, for you, they do. Try again.



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.


It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in
if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore.

So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of
the country out of your paranoia.

OK I will take your word for it. Everything is fine.

Never said that, but you're not willing to look at anything but
absolutes. That's intellectually lazy.