|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:39:10 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:49:10 -0800, wrote: It is not "long term" when you already can't pay your bills without borrowing money and the serious obligations have not even hit yet. Huh? People do this all the time when they use a credit card. While not the best way to pay for things, it's fine if done responsibly and in the short term. If your credit card minimum payments are greater than your income you are on the road to bankruptcy and that is what SS is doing right now. And, that isn't the case for the US. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." Interesting that you didn't quote from the top of the report... "For Medicare, it projects that changes put in place by the new health reform law will help extend the life of the program's trust fund by 12 years – from 2017 to 2029. But this projection comes with cautions that such gains will be dependent on the federal government achieving significant health care savings in the years to come. Meanwhile, the recession has worsened Social Security’s financial health – at least in the near term." Why quote a lie? That all assumes THREE things. One that there is really a trust fund, there isn't Two. it also assumes they will increase the taxes like the health care bill calls for. They just reduced the taxes 2% across the board. Why would I think those 2014 increases will stand. It also assumes health care costs will go down. They always go up. YOU quoted the report and conveniently left out the part you didn't like. I left out the things that were conjecture, dreams and estimates. I am showing what is already happening. According to you. According to that trustees' report. The quotes you posted are all prefaces with assumptions. You can just go look at the OMB site and see what is happening right now. SS/Medicare is simply paying out more than it takes in, every month. Which has nothing to do with short-term problems. Keep trying. You're just thrashing around over a long-term problem. Nothing is happening next week (yes, that's a metaphor). The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". First sentence from the conclusion: "Conclusion The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The tax increases in that bill have already been gutted and they are talking about removing the payroll tax altogether. Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . This is totally untrue. The Dems have tried to raise taxes on those over $250K, you even said as much, but the Reps won't have it. Get your story straight. Did they or didn't they? They talk about it but they had both houses of congress and the white house. Nothing happened. Which is a failing of the Democrats for sure. In any case, this is what needs to happen. I think it will still happen in one form or another. They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Try again. OK They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. I am not sure what else to say. It is a fact that SS and Medicare spend more than they make right now and you deny it. I have also never seen any projection or guess than changes that in the LONG TERM. I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. No. I'm denying that it's a short term problem. I've said this several times. Why is this difficult for you to get? Because the long term failure has already started and there is no end in sight. The projection of a surplus for a few years in the trustee report is not valid now that Obama cut the total revenue by 14.2% (taking 14% FICA down to 12%). It is like they just gave up on the solvency of SS/Medicare. No it hasn't. That's just FEAR not reality. I know. It's all Obama's fault and the sky is falling. Bad man... |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:12:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:53:10 -0800, wrote: I have no idea who Wilbur is That's odd since both you and Wilbur's recent "girl friend" post with the same account headers from Eternal-September.org Believe what you want, but please leave me out of your paranoia! |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:59:34 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:05 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:50:34 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:07:03 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:20:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:32 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote: 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. No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well. According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is needed?? That's what you're claiming... Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups? What groups? There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several others were combined. For some reason you think that represents terrible bloat. That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the pot of money. Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published facts. What "fact"? Disbanded only meant they got different stationary. I guarantee you the building and all the people in it were still there. They just lost some of their autonomy to decide what they should be regulating. You sure are an expert in so many things! Esp. when the published facts don't match your view. I know what I saw. Well, let's see... say I walk down a street and I see a mugging. Do I then conclude that all streets have muggings on them? That seems to be what you're saying...because you saw something that means it happens everywhere. This is simpler than that. You said AEC was disbanded and I said it never went anywhere, nobody lost their job, they just got a new "agency", and then layer a "department" above them. Something is simpler, but I'm not going to say what. I also seem to understand government jargon better than you. Maybe it is because I grew up around it, most of my friends worked there for their whole career and I worked there for 15 years. It you want to talk about the patent attorney business I will deter to your experience. What gov't jargon? Seems to me you're speaking regular English (more so that some people in fact) :) Things like agency and department. They have distinct meanings and different political connotations. It is not the Webster definition. Whatever. That's not jargon, but feel free to be the king of it whatever you want to call it. A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much oversight in the first place. So, there should be less? There was less Things are a bit more complicated now. Perhaps we should go back to the regulations in place before the 1920s. In some cases, maybe we should. Which cases? Like extreme poverty, no safety net, terrible food safety, etc., etc. Changing the subject again? You commented, I replied. Sorry if you don't like the reply. Next time don't talk about the 1920s. Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the collection of methane from cow farts? So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your argument? I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it simple. ?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something. It also does not equate to putting more management overhead on top of an agency that was working just fine. It's not clear it was "working fine." That's your interpretation that's unsupported. We were not having plant melt downs when AEC was regulating them. Which melt down is that? I can think of 3-mile island... Here's list. You pick... http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Maybe the government can't be trusted with nukes ;) Haha... so, give them to Haliburton. I guess AEC just did a better job of covering it up. You win I haven't won or lost anything. That's a guy's game. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote: Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. How is that? You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up every year with a $70B tax increase. Try your math again. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help? You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your 60s it is going to crash before you die. If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire. Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security card "By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty level, you won't get a dime from Social Security" "Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous" You will think I was nostradamus I think you're very afraid. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Feb 22, 1:15*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:12:05 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:53:10 -0800, wrote: I have no idea who Wilbur is That's odd since both you and Wilbur's recent "girl friend" post with the same account headers from Eternal-September.org Believe what you want, but please leave me out of your paranoia! Paranoia has nothing to do with it, JessicaB. Headers do, though. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Feb 22, 1:21*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote: Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...kdn=DemRep&Cyc... Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. How is that? You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up every year with a $70B tax increase. Try your math again. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help? You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your 60s it is going to crash before you die. If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire. Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security card "By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty level, you won't get a dime from Social Security" "Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous" You will think I was nostradamus I think you're very afraid. Many here believe you are stupid. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 2:13 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:39:10 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:49:10 -0800, wrote: It is not "long term" when you already can't pay your bills without borrowing money and the serious obligations have not even hit yet. Huh? People do this all the time when they use a credit card. While not the best way to pay for things, it's fine if done responsibly and in the short term. If your credit card minimum payments are greater than your income you are on the road to bankruptcy and that is what SS is doing right now. And, that isn't the case for the US. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." Interesting that you didn't quote from the top of the report... "For Medicare, it projects that changes put in place by the new health reform law will help extend the life of the program's trust fund by 12 years – from 2017 to 2029. But this projection comes with cautions that such gains will be dependent on the federal government achieving significant health care savings in the years to come. Meanwhile, the recession has worsened Social Security’s financial health – at least in the near term." Why quote a lie? That all assumes THREE things. One that there is really a trust fund, there isn't Two. it also assumes they will increase the taxes like the health care bill calls for. They just reduced the taxes 2% across the board. Why would I think those 2014 increases will stand. It also assumes health care costs will go down. They always go up. YOU quoted the report and conveniently left out the part you didn't like. I left out the things that were conjecture, dreams and estimates. I am showing what is already happening. According to you. According to that trustees' report. The quotes you posted are all prefaces with assumptions. You can just go look at the OMB site and see what is happening right now. SS/Medicare is simply paying out more than it takes in, every month. Which has nothing to do with short-term problems. Keep trying. You're just thrashing around over a long-term problem. Nothing is happening next week (yes, that's a metaphor). The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". First sentence from the conclusion: "Conclusion The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The tax increases in that bill have already been gutted and they are talking about removing the payroll tax altogether. Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . This is totally untrue. The Dems have tried to raise taxes on those over $250K, you even said as much, but the Reps won't have it. Get your story straight. Did they or didn't they? They talk about it but they had both houses of congress and the white house. Nothing happened. Which is a failing of the Democrats for sure. In any case, this is what needs to happen. I think it will still happen in one form or another. They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Try again. OK They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. I am not sure what else to say. It is a fact that SS and Medicare spend more than they make right now and you deny it. I have also never seen any projection or guess than changes that in the LONG TERM. I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. No. I'm denying that it's a short term problem. I've said this several times. Why is this difficult for you to get? Because the long term failure has already started and there is no end in sight. The projection of a surplus for a few years in the trustee report is not valid now that Obama cut the total revenue by 14.2% (taking 14% FICA down to 12%). It is like they just gave up on the solvency of SS/Medicare. No it hasn't. That's just FEAR not reality. I know. It's all Obama's fault and the sky is falling. Bad man... Sooner or later Greg is going to realize that you are just a nut case who just likes to argue for arguments sake. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 2:21 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote: Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. How is that? You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up every year with a $70B tax increase. Try your math again. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help? You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your 60s it is going to crash before you die. If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire. Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security card "By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty level, you won't get a dime from Social Security" "Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous" You will think I was nostradamus I think you're very afraid. Ignorance is bliss. Poor baby. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 5:15 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:21 am, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote: Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...kdn=DemRep&Cyc... Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. How is that? You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up every year with a $70B tax increase. Try your math again. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help? You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your 60s it is going to crash before you die. If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire. Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security card "By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty level, you won't get a dime from Social Security" "Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous" You will think I was nostradamus I think you're very afraid. Many here believe you are stupid. That's a given. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/21/2011 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:32:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:54:13 -0800, wrote: They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. Since you don't seem to be very interested in boats or boating, why don't you leave the group? Wilbur is lonely over on r.b.c after you jilted him. What is *your* problem? I think you're just afraid of me (or anyone who challenges your self-made authority). I have no idea who Wilbur is and I only visited rec.boats.cruising for a look-see a few days ago. It didn't seem that interesting. How about you go there, since it appears to be much more about boating, and that's what you want, right? We might take you up on your advice if you never return as Jessica, DePlume, or any of your other silly fantasies. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 2:15 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:12:05 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:53:10 -0800, wrote: I have no idea who Wilbur is That's odd since both you and Wilbur's recent "girl friend" post with the same account headers from Eternal-September.org Believe what you want, but please leave me out of your paranoia! Please put rec.boats out of your life. I couldn't request it more plainly or respectfully. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/21/2011 10:40 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:13 -0500, wrote: I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. It's a faith based belief system. :-) Actually I can tell you how it will get resolved. At some point there will be no one willing to buy any more US debt. Interest rates will skyrocket and the economic system as we now know it will grind to a halt. Inflation will run rampant and social security checks will become worthless pocket money. There will be massive rioting in the big cities and shortages of just about everything. It will not be pretty at all. I'm thinking about buying another sail boat or a farm in the country somewhere. Sounds like another Egypt in the making. BTW Did you hear what happened to poor Lara Logan. I like the poor girl for her reporting, and guts, among other things. I hope she recovers mentally as well as physically |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 2:11 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:48:48 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:50:52 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:40:50 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:13 -0500, wrote: I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. It's a faith based belief system. :-) Actually I can tell you how it will get resolved. At some point there will be no one willing to buy any more US debt. Interest rates will skyrocket and the economic system as we now know it will grind to a halt. Inflation will run rampant and social security checks will become worthless pocket money. There will be massive rioting in the big cities and shortages of just about everything. It will not be pretty at all. I'm thinking about buying another sail boat or a farm in the country somewhere. Yes, that's a correct analysis. We're not particularly close to that situation. In more than a sense, any kind of economic system beyond simple transactions is a faith-based system. That's the definition pretty much of 'full faith and credit.' Our debt problem is about as bad as it was at the end of WWII but this time we are not the engine of production and the only industrialized country in the world that wasn't blown to hell. We're also the place where just about everyone turns to when there are problems, financial or otherwise. We don't really have the production capacity to dig our way out of this mess right now. It surely won't come from an internal service economy paying for 80 million retired people. One day the government will stop lying to us and tell us we have to cut our spending, just like Europe is doing now. We also better find something we can make and sell to the world to repatriate some of our money "One day" Well, whatever. The sky isn't falling. Again. Ignorance is bliss. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:40:50 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:13 -0500, wrote: I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. It's a faith based belief system. :-) Actually I can tell you how it will get resolved. At some point there will be no one willing to buy any more US debt. Interest rates will skyrocket and the economic system as we now know it will grind to a halt. Inflation will run rampant and social security checks will become worthless pocket money. There will be massive rioting in the big cities and shortages of just about everything. It will not be pretty at all. I'm thinking about buying another sail boat or a farm in the country somewhere. I know how to plow a field, cultivate corn, milk cows, and could probably butcher a hog...if you need help. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:19:29 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:13:36 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:39:10 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:49:10 -0800, wrote: It is not "long term" when you already can't pay your bills without borrowing money and the serious obligations have not even hit yet. Huh? People do this all the time when they use a credit card. While not the best way to pay for things, it's fine if done responsibly and in the short term. If your credit card minimum payments are greater than your income you are on the road to bankruptcy and that is what SS is doing right now. And, that isn't the case for the US. All of our government spending, including SS/Medicare is more than we take in, right now. It is not just a little either, it is over 40 cents on every dollar. That is a problem today and there is no real plan to fix it in the future. It's only a problem "today" if the crazies in the house refuse to raise the debt limit. It'll be a small problem if they refuse to pass a reasonable budget. I certainly agree that it needs to be fixed and we should just kick the can down the road, but there's no reason to take draconian measures on the backs of the middle-class and poor. Let's start with the rich. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." Interesting that you didn't quote from the top of the report... "For Medicare, it projects that changes put in place by the new health reform law will help extend the life of the program's trust fund by 12 years – from 2017 to 2029. But this projection comes with cautions that such gains will be dependent on the federal government achieving significant health care savings in the years to come. Meanwhile, the recession has worsened Social Security’s financial health – at least in the near term." Why quote a lie? That all assumes THREE things. One that there is really a trust fund, there isn't Two. it also assumes they will increase the taxes like the health care bill calls for. They just reduced the taxes 2% across the board. Why would I think those 2014 increases will stand. It also assumes health care costs will go down. They always go up. YOU quoted the report and conveniently left out the part you didn't like. I left out the things that were conjecture, dreams and estimates. I am showing what is already happening. According to you. According to that trustees' report. The quotes you posted are all prefaces with assumptions. You can just go look at the OMB site and see what is happening right now. SS/Medicare is simply paying out more than it takes in, every month. Which has nothing to do with short-term problems. Keep trying. You're just thrashing around over a long-term problem. Nothing is happening next week (yes, that's a metaphor). It is happening TODAY. Wayne is right, there is a limit to how long people will still be willing to buy our debt and when the auctions start going up, they will go up very fast. Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". First sentence from the conclusion: "Conclusion The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The tax increases in that bill have already been gutted and they are talking about removing the payroll tax altogether. Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . This is totally untrue. The Dems have tried to raise taxes on those over $250K, you even said as much, but the Reps won't have it. Get your story straight. Did they or didn't they? They talk about it but they had both houses of congress and the white house. Nothing happened. Which is a failing of the Democrats for sure. In any case, this is what needs to happen. I think it will still happen in one form or another. They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Try again. OK They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. I am not sure what else to say. It is a fact that SS and Medicare spend more than they make right now and you deny it. I have also never seen any projection or guess than changes that in the LONG TERM. I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. No. I'm denying that it's a short term problem. I've said this several times. Why is this difficult for you to get? Because the long term failure has already started and there is no end in sight. The projection of a surplus for a few years in the trustee report is not valid now that Obama cut the total revenue by 14.2% (taking 14% FICA down to 12%). It is like they just gave up on the solvency of SS/Medicare. No it hasn't. That's just FEAR not reality. What is unreal about that? You are in the same kind of denial as those people I tried to talk to in 2006. They kept saying house prices would always go up. The huge debts they took on would never have to be paid off because they could always sell the house for a profit. You're mixing problems... if we had better regulation, the housing bubble wouldn't have happened in such a terrible way. That's got nothing to do with the long-term financial problems except peripherally. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:27:04 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:21:30 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:57 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote: Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. How is that? You are not attacking a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit that is going up every year with a $70B tax increase. Try your math again. It is not my math, itt is OMB. They say that tax hike would be $700B in 10 years. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. It is worse in the future than it is now. How does long term help? You are just kicking the can down the road and hoping you die before you hit the wall. That may work if you are 75 but if you are in your 60s it is going to crash before you die. If you are in your 50s it will hit the wall before you can retire. Print this out and put it in your wallet with your social security card "By 2020 the minimum retirement age will be at least 70 and benefits will be strictly means tested. If you are much above the poverty level, you won't get a dime from Social Security" "Medicare will be a totally different program and a lot less generous" You will think I was nostradamus I think you're very afraid. Yes I am. I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens when the government can't pay it's bills. I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to whom they cater. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:12:25 -0500, John H
wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:40:50 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:13 -0500, wrote: I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. It's a faith based belief system. :-) Actually I can tell you how it will get resolved. At some point there will be no one willing to buy any more US debt. Interest rates will skyrocket and the economic system as we now know it will grind to a halt. Inflation will run rampant and social security checks will become worthless pocket money. There will be massive rioting in the big cities and shortages of just about everything. It will not be pretty at all. I'm thinking about buying another sail boat or a farm in the country somewhere. I know how to plow a field, cultivate corn, milk cows, and could probably butcher a hog...if you need help. I grew up in a rural area but don't have any "hands on" experience milking cows, seen it done however. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote:
Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 2:40 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. Last I heard, Da Plume was a meter reader working for the city of Santa Monica. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:40:40 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not rich, but I would certainly be willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. I guess you're unwilling, even though you have a huge yacht and apparently lots of money for your toys. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:40:40 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not rich, but I would certainly be willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. I guess you're unwilling, even though you have a huge yacht and apparently lots of money for your toys. Probably few aren't willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. The crux of the matter is, who qualifies as less fortunate? I'm not going to have my extra tax dollars pay for the daughter of some christian fundies who had a baby because the parents wouldn't let her get an abortion. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/22/2011 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:40:40 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not rich, but I would certainly be willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. I guess you're unwilling, even though you have a huge yacht and apparently lots of money for your toys. The IRS accepts donations. Knock yourself out. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:23 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 2/22/2011 3:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:40:40 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: Let's start with the rich. Yes, the rich patent attorneys, couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not rich, but I would certainly be willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. I guess you're unwilling, even though you have a huge yacht and apparently lots of money for your toys. Probably few aren't willing to pay more in taxes for those who are less fortunate. The crux of the matter is, who qualifies as less fortunate? I'm not going to have my extra tax dollars pay for the daughter of some christian fundies who had a baby because the parents wouldn't let her get an abortion. I think anyone making over $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over that number. That seems pretty fair. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:48:54 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:19:29 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:13:36 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:39:10 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:49:10 -0800, wrote: It is not "long term" when you already can't pay your bills without borrowing money and the serious obligations have not even hit yet. Huh? People do this all the time when they use a credit card. While not the best way to pay for things, it's fine if done responsibly and in the short term. If your credit card minimum payments are greater than your income you are on the road to bankruptcy and that is what SS is doing right now. And, that isn't the case for the US. All of our government spending, including SS/Medicare is more than we take in, right now. It is not just a little either, it is over 40 cents on every dollar. That is a problem today and there is no real plan to fix it in the future. It's only a problem "today" if the crazies in the house refuse to raise the debt limit. It'll be a small problem if they refuse to pass a reasonable budget. I certainly agree that it needs to be fixed and we should just kick the can down the road, but there's no reason to take draconian measures on the backs of the middle-class and poor. Let's start with the rich. We can go after rich people as a symbolic gesture but they are not rich enough to fix this problem, even if we took all of their money. It is not symbolic. It's going to help. It won't "fix this problem" but it'll be better than throwing the mentally ill out on the street. We always seem to find an excuse why we should not start now and we kick the can. I've suggested a way to start, but you're opposed to it because it doesn't completely fix the problem. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." Interesting that you didn't quote from the top of the report... "For Medicare, it projects that changes put in place by the new health reform law will help extend the life of the program's trust fund by 12 years – from 2017 to 2029. But this projection comes with cautions that such gains will be dependent on the federal government achieving significant health care savings in the years to come. Meanwhile, the recession has worsened Social Security’s financial health – at least in the near term." Why quote a lie? That all assumes THREE things. One that there is really a trust fund, there isn't Two. it also assumes they will increase the taxes like the health care bill calls for. They just reduced the taxes 2% across the board. Why would I think those 2014 increases will stand. It also assumes health care costs will go down. They always go up. YOU quoted the report and conveniently left out the part you didn't like. I left out the things that were conjecture, dreams and estimates. I am showing what is already happening. According to you. According to that trustees' report. The quotes you posted are all prefaces with assumptions. You can just go look at the OMB site and see what is happening right now. SS/Medicare is simply paying out more than it takes in, every month. Which has nothing to do with short-term problems. Keep trying. You're just thrashing around over a long-term problem. Nothing is happening next week (yes, that's a metaphor). It is happening TODAY. Wayne is right, there is a limit to how long people will still be willing to buy our debt and when the auctions start going up, they will go up very fast. Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. So you think we should wait until they do stop buying our debt before we act? That is a hell of a game of chicken you want to play with the full faith and credit of the US. Never said that, as you know. The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". First sentence from the conclusion: "Conclusion The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The tax increases in that bill have already been gutted and they are talking about removing the payroll tax altogether. Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . This is totally untrue. The Dems have tried to raise taxes on those over $250K, you even said as much, but the Reps won't have it. Get your story straight. Did they or didn't they? They talk about it but they had both houses of congress and the white house. Nothing happened. Which is a failing of the Democrats for sure. In any case, this is what needs to happen. I think it will still happen in one form or another. They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Try again. OK They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. I am not sure what else to say. It is a fact that SS and Medicare spend more than they make right now and you deny it. I have also never seen any projection or guess than changes that in the LONG TERM. I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. No. I'm denying that it's a short term problem. I've said this several times. Why is this difficult for you to get? Because the long term failure has already started and there is no end in sight. The projection of a surplus for a few years in the trustee report is not valid now that Obama cut the total revenue by 14.2% (taking 14% FICA down to 12%). It is like they just gave up on the solvency of SS/Medicare. No it hasn't. That's just FEAR not reality. What is unreal about that? You are in the same kind of denial as those people I tried to talk to in 2006. They kept saying house prices would always go up. The huge debts they took on would never have to be paid off because they could always sell the house for a profit. You're mixing problems... if we had better regulation, the housing bubble wouldn't have happened in such a terrible way. That's got nothing to do with the long-term financial problems except peripherally. The level of denial is the same. Also the idea that nobody was going to address the problem until the economy crashed. There were plenty of signs and plenty of people who were predicting the housing crash. This paranoid guy was one of them. You've tried to change the subject. It didn't work. They are two different issues. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:49:54 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:07:27 -0800, wrote: I think you're very afraid. Yes I am. I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens when the government can't pay it's bills. I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to whom they cater. The senate is the traditional rich man's club. Yet at the moment, it's the House that's acting loony. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:06:31 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:26:36 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:48:54 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:05:50 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:19:29 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:13:36 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:39:10 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:49:10 -0800, wrote: It is not "long term" when you already can't pay your bills without borrowing money and the serious obligations have not even hit yet. Huh? People do this all the time when they use a credit card. While not the best way to pay for things, it's fine if done responsibly and in the short term. If your credit card minimum payments are greater than your income you are on the road to bankruptcy and that is what SS is doing right now. And, that isn't the case for the US. All of our government spending, including SS/Medicare is more than we take in, right now. It is not just a little either, it is over 40 cents on every dollar. That is a problem today and there is no real plan to fix it in the future. It's only a problem "today" if the crazies in the house refuse to raise the debt limit. It'll be a small problem if they refuse to pass a reasonable budget. I certainly agree that it needs to be fixed and we should just kick the can down the road, but there's no reason to take draconian measures on the backs of the middle-class and poor. Let's start with the rich. We can go after rich people as a symbolic gesture but they are not rich enough to fix this problem, even if we took all of their money. It is not symbolic. It's going to help. It won't "fix this problem" but it'll be better than throwing the mentally ill out on the street. Now you are channeling the Carter administration? Talking about what's happening in Arizona right now. We always seem to find an excuse why we should not start now and we kick the can. I've suggested a way to start, but you're opposed to it because it doesn't completely fix the problem. I have said we should reset the rates to the 2001 level, or even repeal the Clinton tax cuts. The problem is if you don't attack entitlements, it is just symbolic. No. It's one step that needs to be taken. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." Interesting that you didn't quote from the top of the report... "For Medicare, it projects that changes put in place by the new health reform law will help extend the life of the program's trust fund by 12 years – from 2017 to 2029. But this projection comes with cautions that such gains will be dependent on the federal government achieving significant health care savings in the years to come. Meanwhile, the recession has worsened Social Security’s financial health – at least in the near term." Why quote a lie? That all assumes THREE things. One that there is really a trust fund, there isn't Two. it also assumes they will increase the taxes like the health care bill calls for. They just reduced the taxes 2% across the board. Why would I think those 2014 increases will stand. It also assumes health care costs will go down. They always go up. YOU quoted the report and conveniently left out the part you didn't like. I left out the things that were conjecture, dreams and estimates. I am showing what is already happening. According to you. According to that trustees' report. The quotes you posted are all prefaces with assumptions. You can just go look at the OMB site and see what is happening right now. SS/Medicare is simply paying out more than it takes in, every month. Which has nothing to do with short-term problems. Keep trying. You're just thrashing around over a long-term problem. Nothing is happening next week (yes, that's a metaphor). It is happening TODAY. Wayne is right, there is a limit to how long people will still be willing to buy our debt and when the auctions start going up, they will go up very fast. Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. So you think we should wait until they do stop buying our debt before we act? That is a hell of a game of chicken you want to play with the full faith and credit of the US. Never said that, as you know. The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". First sentence from the conclusion: "Conclusion The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The tax increases in that bill have already been gutted and they are talking about removing the payroll tax altogether. Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . This is totally untrue. The Dems have tried to raise taxes on those over $250K, you even said as much, but the Reps won't have it. Get your story straight. Did they or didn't they? They talk about it but they had both houses of congress and the white house. Nothing happened. Which is a failing of the Democrats for sure. In any case, this is what needs to happen. I think it will still happen in one form or another. They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Try again. OK They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. I am not sure what else to say. It is a fact that SS and Medicare spend more than they make right now and you deny it. I have also never seen any projection or guess than changes that in the LONG TERM. I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. No. I'm denying that it's a short term problem. I've said this several times. Why is this difficult for you to get? Because the long term failure has already started and there is no end in sight. The projection of a surplus for a few years in the trustee report is not valid now that Obama cut the total revenue by 14.2% (taking 14% FICA down to 12%). It is like they just gave up on the solvency of SS/Medicare. No it hasn't. That's just FEAR not reality. What is unreal about that? You are in the same kind of denial as those people I tried to talk to in 2006. They kept saying house prices would always go up. The huge debts they took on would never have to be paid off because they could always sell the house for a profit. You're mixing problems... if we had better regulation, the housing bubble wouldn't have happened in such a terrible way. That's got nothing to do with the long-term financial problems except peripherally. The level of denial is the same. Also the idea that nobody was going to address the problem until the economy crashed. There were plenty of signs and plenty of people who were predicting the housing crash. This paranoid guy was one of them. You've tried to change the subject. It didn't work. They are two different issues. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:09:28 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:26:36 -0800, wrote: Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. So you think we should wait until they do stop buying our debt before we act? That is a hell of a game of chicken you want to play with the full faith and credit of the US. Never said that, as you know. You just did. You are not going to believe there is a problem until you see it happening. By then it will be too late. Please show me where I said the long term problem doesn't exist and/or doesn't need to be addressed. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:15:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/02/2011 1:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:41:22 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote: they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for and now that they dont have to pay bribes to the govt to have a job, the market system can take over. we havent learned that in the US. here we have crony capitalism where the middle class has no protection against the raw forces of crony capitalism Where did you think all the Obama bailout spending went? more blame it on the black guy when cheney met behind closed doors with exxon, the right thought this was great. obama gets us universal healthcare and the right thinks he's a commie muslim atheist islamist jihadist It didn't go to the middle class people. So if you think the middle class should not bailout the rich, how come you vote Obama? we dont have a choice about bailing out the rich we DO have a choice about preventing the NEXT TIME. it's called 'moral hazard theory' and the right is doing EVERYTHING to make sure we h ave to bail out the rich AGAIN |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:33 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/02/2011 2:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:47:58 -0500, wrote: how about last year, when teh dems started talking RE regulating wall street? THEN WS started to shovel money to the GOP: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wall-...ry?id=11359466 Face it, corrupt debtors, corrupt corporation and delinquent debtors like GM all love democrats, they are so willing to screw the taxpayer for bailouts and corruption. which, i suppose, is why the GOP cut the capital gains tax on the rich and threw the economy into recession You voted for Obama, not me. I don't believe in bailouts. Bailouts using the tax system is pure corruption. If Chavez does the same thing, media would say corruption third world. In America we call it bailouts. hey henry paulson..bush's treasury secretary...was the architect of the bailouts. it was the GOP's idea. not the dems |
Winning elections is not good enough
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:52:35 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 7:18 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job? and how's wall street doing after sucking 10 trillion out of the economy in the last 3 years? we back at full employment? You still do not get it do you? Government, big governmetn including Obama are not the solution, they ARE the problem. no, that reagan cliche is dead. especially since reagan RAISED taxes to try and balance the budget if the GOVT was the problem, we wouldnt have had wall street suck 10 TRILLION out of the economy OTHER countries with MORE regulation did NOT suffer as we did you right wingers simply have no EVIDENCE for your views. none. you have MYTH, FAIRY TALES and stories but no EVIDENCE. that's why liberals are smarter; we rely on evidence The more government gets, the less the people get. really? and how we doing in the last 3 years after the MASSIVE DEREGULATION of wall street? we doing OK? US Government is BROKE. Bankrupt. gee. wall street just caused a meltdown of the economy. put millions out of work and you blame it on the GOVT HAHAHAHA Few know, UK tried this once. They devalued their currency by 30% overnight because of DEBT. Took them over a decade to recover. what we NEED to do is REGULATE wall street and re-establish the credibility of markets but the right wont go for it. it's better to let the middle class keep bailing out the rich. That "wall street" cliche is dead. Proper capitalization is not, blind man. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 22/02/2011 5:27 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:15:28 -0700, wrote: On 21/02/2011 1:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:41:22 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote: they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for and now that they dont have to pay bribes to the govt to have a job, the market system can take over. we havent learned that in the US. here we have crony capitalism where the middle class has no protection against the raw forces of crony capitalism Where did you think all the Obama bailout spending went? more blame it on the black guy when cheney met behind closed doors with exxon, the right thought this was great. obama gets us universal healthcare and the right thinks he's a commie muslim atheist islamist jihadist Actually, up until 12 years old or so he was raised as a Maxist Muslim. Not a commie. Not ever sure I heard anyone knowledgeable call him an atheist, he knows how to bow to Islam religious leaders and do the masonic handshake. Islamicist, funny how he didn't see the connection of building a Mosque on the ground where 9/11 body ashes fell. Not very christian if you ask me. But he only became a christian of convenience at 27 years old. For jihadist, just look at the US economy an dfiscal debt of the US Federal government. Financial suicide to try to debt-spend your way out of a debt problem. Never has worked, never will. Or do you think that was deliberate? Because Obama could be just plain stupid, or did he deliberately debt spiral the US into economic suicide? It didn't go to the middle class people. So if you think the middle class should not bailout the rich, how come you vote Obama? we dont have a choice about bailing out the rich we DO have a choice about preventing the NEXT TIME. it's called 'moral hazard theory' and the right is doing EVERYTHING to make sure we h ave to bail out the rich AGAIN Funny. Bush and Obama followed their hidden masters well. Bailout the select insider billionaires. Mostly Arabs, Muslim Arabs. Bin Laden had lots of deposits with Carlyle group, Bush Sr was there at one time too. Carlyle had big interests in GM, which was going under. Big beneficiaries of the GM bailout. Yep, the flow of corruption didn't even change course much with Bush to Obama didn't it? Now maybe you know why big money and big media came through for Obama at the last minite. Hilary didn't have what it took to take on McCain so money made Obama the man. Corrupt money that is. Hey, elections are bought and paid for. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 22/02/2011 5:37 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:33 -0700, wrote: On 21/02/2011 2:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:47:58 -0500, wrote: how about last year, when teh dems started talking RE regulating wall street? THEN WS started to shovel money to the GOP: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wall-...ry?id=11359466 Face it, corrupt debtors, corrupt corporation and delinquent debtors like GM all love democrats, they are so willing to screw the taxpayer for bailouts and corruption. which, i suppose, is why the GOP cut the capital gains tax on the rich and threw the economy into recession For what difference it will make? Come now. You would have a better chance saving the Titanic with bubble gum. Government has to slash at least 50% of its gross spending at a minimum, and that may not be enough. You voted for Obama, not me. I don't believe in bailouts. Bailouts using the tax system is pure corruption. If Chavez does the same thing, media would say corruption third world. In America we call it bailouts. hey henry paulson..bush's treasury secretary...was the architect of the bailouts. it was the GOP's idea. not the dems So, but he didn't make his marching orders. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:14:53 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:30:31 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:49:54 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:07:27 -0800, wrote: I think you're very afraid. Yes I am. I can't help it if you think nothing can happen to us because we are the USA but history shows us, all empires fall. It usually happens when the government can't pay it's bills. I've never said that. In fact, I've said repeatedly that we need to get our house in order. Let's start with the House and the rich to whom they cater. The senate is the traditional rich man's club. Yet at the moment, it's the House that's acting loony. I agree, they are not doing anything significant either. They are saving millions in a trillion dollar problem. Bear in mind if we didn't have a loony house in the 90s Clinton would have never had a balanced budget. Budgets come from the house. That 200 pound fairy tale the president submits has no real meaning at all. They have no obligation to even read it. Certainly true about the Presidential budget... it's a wish list at best. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:58:05 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:16:17 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:09:28 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:26:36 -0800, wrote: Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. So you think we should wait until they do stop buying our debt before we act? That is a hell of a game of chicken you want to play with the full faith and credit of the US. Never said that, as you know. You just did. You are not going to believe there is a problem until you see it happening. By then it will be too late. Please show me where I said the long term problem doesn't exist and/or doesn't need to be addressed. You just think everything is "long term" AKA someone elses problem. It is here right now. Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always, and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes. The time to fix this was 30 years ago. We may already be past the tipping point. Fear-based nonsense. The real problem is the entitlements and we will never go after people who are retired or within 10-15 years of retirement. That means most of the boomer problem is still coming and there is nothing we can do about it., Maybe the Republicans should reinvent death panels ala Arizona style. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:18:52 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/02/2011 5:27 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:15:28 -0700, wrote: Where did you think all the Obama bailout spending went? more blame it on the black guy when cheney met behind closed doors with exxon, the right thought this was great. obama gets us universal healthcare and the right thinks he's a commie muslim atheist islamist jihadist Actually, up until 12 years old or so he was raised as a Maxist Muslim. HAHAHAH a 12 year old marxist THAT'S a laugh!! and a MARXIST MUSLIM??? uh now remind me...who were the TALIBAN fighting in afghanistan oh, yeah. the marxist soviets... For jihadist, just look at the US economy an dfiscal debt of the US Federal government. Financial suicide to try to debt-spend your way out of a debt problem. Never has worked, never will. Or do you think that was deliberate? financial suicide started by george bush who ran up a 1.2 TRILLION debt but he's white... Funny. Bush and Obama followed their hidden masters well. Bailout the select insider billionaires. Mostly Arabs, Muslim Arabs. Bin Laden had lots of deposits with Carlyle group, Bush Sr was there at one time too. Carlyle had big interests in GM, which was going under. Big beneficiaries of the GM bailout. yep and the US people keep voting in right wing idiots who deregulate EVERYTHING so let all the arabs and other enemies buy our elections just like the right wing said was OK with the 'citizens united' SCOTUS decision that the LIBERAL justices opposed |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:22:08 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/02/2011 5:37 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:33 -0700, wrote: which, i suppose, is why the GOP cut the capital gains tax on the rich and threw the economy into recession For what difference it will make? Come now. You would have a better chance saving the Titanic with bubble gum. Government has to slash at least 50% of its gross spending at a minimum, and that may not be enough. or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the deficit |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote: or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the deficit I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't expect that to do much for the deficit. It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K and above people. If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years. That is still only about a third of the deficit. http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax increases. unfortunately. wall street's done us no favors regardless of what the right thinks |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:17:01 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:11:34 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:58:05 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:16:17 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:09:28 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:26:36 -0800, wrote: Yes, there's a limit. There's no indication that those who buy it are going to stop any time soon. So you think we should wait until they do stop buying our debt before we act? That is a hell of a game of chicken you want to play with the full faith and credit of the US. Never said that, as you know. You just did. You are not going to believe there is a problem until you see it happening. By then it will be too late. Please show me where I said the long term problem doesn't exist and/or doesn't need to be addressed. You just think everything is "long term" AKA someone elses problem. It is here right now. Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always, and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes. It has ben your answer to everything in this thread. That's not accurate either. The time to fix this was 30 years ago. We may already be past the tipping point. Fear-based nonsense. Keep telling yourself that if it gets you through the night. Umm... fear-based action is what "gets" you though the night. Rational people are not quaking under the blanket. The real problem is the entitlements and we will never go after people who are retired or within 10-15 years of retirement. That means most of the boomer problem is still coming and there is nothing we can do about it., Maybe the Republicans should reinvent death panels ala Arizona style. Don't be shocked when that happens. It will come in the guise of the Canadian waiting list. Medicare does spend most of it's money on people in their last 6 months of life and the estimate is it really only buys a month or so. Well, perhaps if the Republicans stopped their nonsense about the false death panels, people would have a greater ability to consult with their doctor and thus prevent some of the unnecessary care, but when you have politicians playing on fear, e.g., pull the plug on grandma, then you certainly are not helping the situation. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote: or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the deficit I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't expect that to do much for the deficit. It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K and above people. If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years. That is still only about a third of the deficit. http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class much more for no great benefit. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com