On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:33:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:40 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:23:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:39:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

We would go a long way towards that if we had a tax code that punishes
people who takes jobs offshore and rewards people who create them
here. Unfortunately it works the other way.

Do we see that in the Republican plan? Doubtful.

The republicans are as out of touch as the democrats.
Nobody is willing to tell us this is going to hurt.
In that regard, I have respect for FDR in WWII but he was coming off
of a real depression and we already understood "hurt".

We have 2 or 3 generations of people who have never really had to give
up anything.

So force them to starve... that's your solution? Feel free to find a
politician that isn't a politician.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Medicare is 15-20 % fraud. That is the flaw in having the tax payers
shoveling money at private providers The idea of government providers
will simply not fly here.

Nobody mentioned government providers except you.\

You said providers were making a lot of money. That was the other
option.

Fraud is ended by honest government with the right tools to address it.
If that isn't happening it's because the politicians are bought off by
the private medical industry, who benefit from the fraud.

See above

See who proposes funding for Medicare fraud investigations and who
votes against it.


Until you address the lawyer tax you also are not going to be cutting
medical costs any time soon.

They should do it just to shut you up.
It's mostly a red herring and adds little to the cost.
"Defensive medicine" will still prevail, because it's a professional
means of treatment - and it makes more money for the medical profession.

I keep hearing about what a small percentage of costs go to medical
malpractice judgements but that does not address the costs of
defending suits that never make it to trial because they are too
frivolous or suits that are settled before they make it to trial.

Defensive medicine is real too, no matter what you say.

You said it was the lawyers just a while ago. Now it's that nebulous
defensive medicine... right up until you want something for yourself I
suppose.



The other issue is end of life care.
Any effort to limit care to dead people is seen as rationing, another
problem those other countries don't seem to mind. If they are rich
enough they come here for the care they want.

That's the hardest nut to crack. Best that can be done is end-of-life
counseling and hope people are responsible.
If they're not, "death panels" could be real for public money.
If sensible parameters were proposed by the medical community there
wouldn't be much resistance, except from the politically inspired.
And that part of medicine getting rich from it.

I have no problem with death panels. I have a living will, as do all
of my family members and my deceased parents.

You're just playing the fear card.


Most of those countries are broke too so they are going to be making a
lot of hard decisions about their socialism.


Riiight. I'll wait for them to kill their health care and old age
pension systems.
But I won't hold my breath.

Talk to the Greeks. UK is scaling back it's social services too.

You talk to the Greeks. We're not Greece.


If we don't get a handle on this debt problem you will be worried
about food for your kids. Health care will be a distant dream.


Riiight. Fix debt by replacing Medicare with death vouchers and make it
an impossible dream.
There are plenty of approaches to fixing the debt.

I haven't seen one that makes sense yet. Maybe if you taxed like a
democrat and spent like a tea guy you would get close but you really
need to tax like an FDR democrat.

You've seen plenty but you're unwilling to listen.


Of course. My opinion is a society should provide health care to all at
an affordable cost, and that old folks should get their SS checks, which
are already low enough for the vast majority to qualify as "poverty"
income.

That was all SS was ever intended to be, a safety net, not a hammock


And that's all it is for most collecting it. I just said that.
The average SS check is about $1150 a month.
Here's a solution for cutting benefits.
Cap benefits at $1400 a month.
For a single that's enough above poverty level so you don't qualify for
unpaid government handouts.
I'll take a good hit.

I suspect it will be more like using the current work sheet but
instead of taking that part above $32-44k as regular income at your
tax rate they would just start taking it back in big chunks as your
income rises, up to 100%



The WWII generation had the foresight to have lots of kids so there
were plenty of workers to fund their retirement. (roughly 16:1)

Now those kids are coming for theirs and the money is all gone.
There are only 3 workers per boomer today. SS worked because it was
pay as you go and there were plenty of payers.
There are simply not enough payers now.

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Whatever... same old nonsense over and over.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:29:53 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:07:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:18:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"

SS/Medicare is s huge wealth transfer from the young to the old.
... and I am an old guy saying it.
It would be real easy for me to say "if you can hold it together for
15 or 20 more years I will be dead and won't give a ****" but I do
have a sense of responsibility about my kids.

S&P just fired a shot across our bow with a drop in the rating of our
sovereign debt. The next step is lowering the ratings on our bonds.
Bear in mind, if we only have to pay half of a percent more on the
debt, it would gobble up every penny of restoring the Bush tax cuts on
the $250k and up folks. ($70 billion a year)

Getting control on the debt is a lot more serious than health care,
global warming, terrorism or any military threats. It affects the full
faith and credit of the US and if that is damaged, we will not be able
to address any of those other issues.

I know it is unthinkable, but the citizens of the US might have to
make some sacrifices to do this.
I have been watching the Ken Burns show about WWII again. If we were
as selfish then as we are now, we would be speaking Japanese or
German. Bob and Plume keep saying we are not in as much of a debt
problem now as we were in 1944 but the difference is US citizens owned
most of that war debt. Now more than half of it is in countries who
really don't care if we fail.

Whoooo wealth transfer. Must be Obama the Marxist.

I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a
PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB.
He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality
that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14%
of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes.
It still is not covering the benefits being paid out.

Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:15:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:14:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.


True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.
There is no money in the SS trust fund, only IOUs from a guy that S&P
just downgraded to "negative". What is it going to take to convince
you folks we are in trouble?

We have a fiscal Pearl Harbor coming and there are still a lot of
people who are going to be shocked.

You still confuse fiction with fact.

You're trying to convince us of something we already believe in. We
don't believe in killing people to solve economic problems.

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

Don't forget over 100 ethenol refineries in the Chicago area where
someone important in Washington has a lot of friends snerk

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, wrote:

In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?
Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.
That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.
We need to stop turning food into fuel.
What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

Don't forget over 100 ethenol refineries in the Chicago area where
someone important in Washington has a lot of friendssnerk


Is there any chance the entire kiddie motorbike "racing" season in your
part of the country will be cancelled this year?

wrote in message ...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:22:19 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote:



That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday
talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better,
saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above
people to make us whole. That is total bull****.
If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a
third of the problem.

You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please
cite something.

I suppose you don't watch the Sunday talk shows. I suppose I could
google something up for you but I get criticized for that too.

If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K,
that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just
throw people out on the street.

That is $70 billion a year. The deficit is $1.5 billion. Do the math.

REPLY:
Under that scenario, we would be OK. Unfortunately the typo is off by a
factor of 1000 on the deficit.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:41:27 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:33 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:33:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:40 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:23:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:39:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

We would go a long way towards that if we had a tax code that punishes
people who takes jobs offshore and rewards people who create them
here. Unfortunately it works the other way.

Do we see that in the Republican plan? Doubtful.

The republicans are as out of touch as the democrats.
Nobody is willing to tell us this is going to hurt.
In that regard, I have respect for FDR in WWII but he was coming off
of a real depression and we already understood "hurt".

We have 2 or 3 generations of people who have never really had to give
up anything.

So force them to starve... that's your solution? Feel free to find a
politician that isn't a politician.


How do these conversations always degrade to the absurd?

I say they need to raise taxes and cut some programs and you
immediately have us all in bread lines.
This country has the fattest "poor" people on the planet. starving is
not really an issue.

We don't need to raise taxes on the middle and poor. Interesting that
you go after fat people. I guess you don't like them.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:38:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:53:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

We are already spending 166% of revenue, how is adding to that deficit
"trivial"?

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.

I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?