| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#51
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. SS isn't a big problem if correctly understood and addressed. But Obama isn't helping at all. Very bad move reducing the SS tax. SS has its own cost/revenue stream for accounting purposes. As the treasuries are redeemed when outflow exceeds inflow, the SS fund will be depleted faster. I've seen it said that when the fund is entirely depleted, SS can still pay 75% of current benefits on SS income alone. But that probably was based on fuller employment than current, and certainly won't hold true at Obama's reduced SS tax rate. Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. Obama's action has knocked years off that. This is no different than the dishonesty of the GWB tax cuts/deficit spending or Reagan's voodoo economics. Where are the adults? A more cynical way of looking at these matters is that politicians know exactly what they are doing. Reagan and GWB figured that the population at large would accept the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer. GWB figured that deep debt would lead to curtailing safety net programs as a means to deal with it. Obama figures that nothing can hurt SS because to hurt it would be fostering rebellion against those who attempt it. If that's true I think they were all correct in their "figuring." The real problem is the 2-party system. Doesn't work any more. Too much time spent with schoolyard feuds, and little common sense. Paul Ryan is a good example of no common sense. Wants to kill Medicare and replace it with vouchers to pay insurance companies for health insurance. Now I ask you. What insurance company wants to insure old people? What's the premium for a 70 year old? $50k a year with a $20k deductable? Man, this guy is in for some hurting when his "plan" gets analyzed. He's a real dope millionaire. I've already heard some economists are saying his plan will add to the deficit too. Written by "The Club for Growth" supposedly. All this whining from Ryan and his millionaire ilk about debt being bad for "the grandchildren", but maybe they don't worry about their grandchildren paying $50k insurance premiums when they become old folks? The nonsense and hypocrisy I see is hilarious. Like I say, where are the adults? I thought reducing the SS tax was a bad idea as well. I think the rationale is that it puts more money in people's hands when they need it, but it's a tepid way of doing it. |
|
#52
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
OmDeFlume wrote:
On 4/9/2011 3:05 AM, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. Priceless! That dumb bitch posted that? Amazing! |
|
#54
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#55
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#56
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. |
|
#57
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 01:56:13 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:32:33 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 23:32:26 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Right now they would have to borrow every penny again from someone else to cash those bonds. How is that not upside down"? Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Only right wing nuts think a crisis that might happen in 30 years has to be fixed in the current hard economic times. We are rapidly coming to the end of that road we have been kicking that can down. I always hear SS was "the most successful program in history" but that was when it was paid for. Now it is in deficit. That is a fact and you can't spin it any other way. The problem is now, not in 30 years. We are just in denial and we are still borrowing money because it is still cheap but that is not going to last long. The interest on the debt is over $200 billion now and we are still paying less than 1% for 2 year treasuries. That could change the next time we have the auction and 3-4% is not a ridiculous projection if our paper just slightly falls out of favor. They already demand that for a 10 year note. According to you. |
|
#58
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Facts don't matter. Don't you get it. |
|
#59
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. |
|
#60
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery | General | |||
| Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama! | General | |||
| Colin Powell Endorses... | General | |||
| Union endorses Republican... | General | |||
| Communist Party endorses Kerry | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
