Wargamer Home - Forum Home
Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security

    Page 1 of 11 :

All Forums : [GENERAL] : General Discussion : Current Events > U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security
11 NOV 2010 at 5:12am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
... also may propose reducing the base rate on corporate taxes, phasing in spending cuts over time, reducing foreign aid by $4.6 billion, freezing federal salaries for three years and banning congressional earmarks. It is unclear how the commissioners would define a congressional earmark.     The proposal would also set a tough target for curbing the growth of Medicare. And it recommends looking at eliminating popular tax breaks, such as mortgage interest deduction.  The plan also calls for cuts in farm subsidies and the Pentagon's budget.           http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/deficit-commission-recommends-changes-social-security/

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search


11 NOV 2010 at 6:40am

Eyebiter

Commander
Commander



Posts : 1232
Joined: 28 DEC 2004

Status : Offline
Funny how they plan to lower corporate income taxes but raise taxes on everyone else.

Buy your share of freedom... today!


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 7:10am

Fitz505

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 33
Joined: 6 NOV 2006

Status : Offline
     Don't see anything about about cutting Medicaid or any welfare programs. Last week, our local newspaper reported that 1 out of 4 people in NY are collecting Medicaid and I'm looking at a double digit property tax increase to cover the Federal MANDATED cost.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 7:11am

Blakjack

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 821
Joined: 5 JUL 2009
Location: US, OH

Status : Offline
In a related issue, a CO congressman has proposed forcing federal employees to take a two-week furlough next year.  This in essence, will be a forced pay-cut without calling it a pay cut.

If you build an idiot-proof computer, someone will make a better idiot.


The Wargamers Tournament: Phase One Combatant Medal



Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 7:13am

bboyer66

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4718
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA

Status : Offline
This might be some good stuff because I hear both sides of the aisle whining about it.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 7:28am

Womf

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 27
Joined: 10 SEP 2009

Status : Offline
There is a small BBC blog that nicely sumarises some of the proposed cuts at a very high-level. It also covers some of the problems associated with pushing these cuts through , i.e. everybody agrees with the the idea of cutting a deficit until the cuts directly impact them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/    

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 9:26am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
The loudest complaint I've heard thus far is over the ending of the home mortgage deduction.  One commentator asked why buy a home without it.  If the only valid reason for buying a home is the government manufactured incentive then owning a home is not very important.  It's not like people won't still need a place to live so construction jobs are safe even if everyone is just renting.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 9:32am

UKyank

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 812
Joined: 13 FEB 2005

Status : Offline
Go radical & refund every penny paid into soc. security, stop collecting the tax and stop sending out any checks (i.e get rid of it totally) and that party will get the vote of every person under the age of 40

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 9:44am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By UKyank
        Go radical & refund every penny paid into soc. security, stop collecting the tax and stop sending out any checks (i.e get rid of it totally) and that party will get the vote of every person under the age of 40    
    That may well be the proper dividing line to part company with this ponzi scheme.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 10:31am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Here's the PDF.     http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/IllustrativeList.pdf      

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 11:02am

Greybriar

Commander
Commander



Posts : 2742
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US

Status : Offline
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.

This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee


Profile Search


11 NOV 2010 at 11:11am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By Greybriar
        Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.    
    Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits.  Which would you prefer?

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 11:52am

Greybriar

Commander
Commander



Posts : 2742
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits.  Which would you prefer?
Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]

This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 12:51pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 691
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits.  Which would you prefer?
I don't know why you think we're somehow like Greece our debt to GDP ratio is about half what Greece's is; and it is a whole lot less than Japan's as well, a country that has a more serious age problem and is not considered by anyone to be in any trouble.  That's just scare mongering. Now, if the long-run picture for our spending is that discretionary and Social Security spending is on a sustainable path for forever.  The one that explodes is health care.  Here is a link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9385/06-17-LTBO_Testimony.pdf Look on page 4, even under the pessimistic Alternative Fiscal Scenario it is all about health care costs. I do have a quicker way to get ALL the deficit reduction of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (as opposed to the other 16 members of the committee) -- do nothing about the tax code.  The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.  
o everything Bowles and Simpson say (including 15 cents more per gallon in gas taxes and lots of defense cuts) and you only get $3.8 trillion over the same period and a debate that will make the health care debate look like a fun-filled party.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 1:07pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By Greybriar
       
Originally Posted By ActionJack
       
Originally Posted By Greybriar
        Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.    
    Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits.  Which would you prefer?    
        Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]    
    I'm not sure you fielded that last question so here's another.  Since the money was spent, albeit foolishly, on the taxpayers, whose backs should bear the burden to pay it off?

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 1:13pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
    We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections.  Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that.  Not in 1932 and not now either.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 2:25pm

Greybriar

Commander
Commander



Posts : 2742
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits.  Which would you prefer?
Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]
I'm not sure you fielded that last question so here's another.  Since the money was spent, albeit foolishly, on the taxpayers, whose backs should bear the burden to pay it off?
Let me put it to you this way, AJ. It's the politicians' fault we are in this financial mess. If they "fix" it by reducing the taxpayers' Social Security and other benefits, they will muck things up again and we'll be right back where we are now. They appear to be a bunch of imbeciles without sense enough to quit spending money the country doesn't have. It's time to say no to their "fix." They're so smart let them come up with an alternative. I'm sick and tired of paying for their mistakes. Let them pay for their own mistakes.

This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 3:42pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Let me put it to you this way, AJ. It's the politicians' fault we are in this financial mess. If they "fix" it by reducing the taxpayers' Social Security and other benefits, they will muck things up again and we'll be right back where we are now. They appear to be a bunch of imbeciles without sense enough to quit spending money the country doesn't have. It's time to say no to their "fix." They're so smart let them come up with an alternative.
    Sounds like you got a solution you seem to believe is obvious.  Well, it's not so how about sharing.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 3:57pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 691
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By ActionJack
The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections.  Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that.  Not in 1932 and not now either.
Yes, we went down this road from 1993-2000 and it eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and provided a stable government framework for economic growth.  Business needs policy stability not erratic movements -- and it also helps to get the fiscal house in order.  Holding the line on future spending and having realistic tax rates for existing obligations enables businesses to plan more readily.  Stop-go policies rarely work well; stable policies are much more helpful.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 4:11pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By medck
       
Originally Posted By ActionJack
       
The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
    We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections.  Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that.  Not in 1932 and not now either.    
            Yes, we went down this road from 1993-2000 and it eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and provided a stable government framework for economic growth.  Business needs policy stability not erratic movements -- and it also helps to get the fiscal house in order.  Holding the line on future spending and having realistic tax rates for existing obligations enables businesses to plan more readily.  Stop-go policies rarely work well; stable policies are much more helpful.    
        Not quite right because it leaves a false impression that Clinton somehow saved the day.  It purposely omits the tried and true formula practiced by Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan which fueled that growth in the economy.  It also mentions nothing of the discipline enforced upon Clinton's administration by the 1994 midterm elections after the first attempt at socializing medicine failed.  You'll get a chance to relive it all again and this time you and Krugman can believe your lying eyes.           "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."     John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference           "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased not a reduced flow of revenues to the federal government."     John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964           In what year was the greatest collection of tax revenue by the federal government?????

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 4:15pm

KevlarSocks

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director, tells Lesley Stahl that even if the government raises taxes on the rich and everyone else - some tough spending cuts will have to be made. Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009246n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.8#ixzz151Dutu4m

Profile Search


11 NOV 2010 at 4:19pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By KevlarSocks
        David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director, tells Lesley Stahl that even if the government raises taxes on the rich and everyone else - some tough spending cuts will have to be made.         Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009246n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.8#ixzz151Dutu4m    
    There are certainly some bitter pills to swallow in the panel's recommendations.    

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 4:35pm

KevlarSocks

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
This was his full interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=contentMain;contentBody Best part: But, as David Stockman will tell you, that attitude is hard to find. "We've demonized taxes. All right. We've created almost the idea they're a metaphysical evil," he said. [size="3"]Still, he says there should be a one-time 15 percent surtax on the wealthy that he estimates would cut the national debt in half. "In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. [size="3"]"The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980." "Of course it would never pass. There's the rub," Stahl remarked. "There's the rub," he agreed. The antipathy to raising any taxes or making any real spending cuts, whether in Washington D.C. or Washington State, is so intense, Stockman despairs that when Congress returns after the election, they'll do what they often do: nothing.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 5:24pm

KevlarSocks

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005

Status : Offline
[size="3"]"The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980." [size="2"]In other words its mostly an accounting sham, which is why fear of the bubble bursting is so real. Yes, when Hank said on a Friday that the financial system could vaporize by Tuesday he wasn't kidding.

Profile Search
11 NOV 2010 at 5:26pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 691
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Not quite right because it leaves a false impression that Clinton somehow saved the day.  It purposely omits the tried and true formula practiced by Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan which fueled that growth in the economy.  It also mentions nothing of the discipline enforced upon Clinton's administration by the 1994 midterm elections after the first attempt at socializing medicine failed.  You'll get a chance to relive it all again and this time you and Krugman can believe your lying eyes.   "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference   "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased not a reduced flow of revenues to the federal government." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964   In what year was the greatest collection of tax revenue by the federal government?????
  On the contrary, I think both Bush I and Clinton came to the rescue.  Reagan raised taxes in 1986 anyways, so I doubt that really supports your case. I like how you cherry-pick quotes.  Here's what JFK thought about tax rates: "I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates .... Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates, which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent".  John F. Kennedy, State of the Union, 14 January 1963.   I happen to think 65% is too high.  I'd settle for the 1990s rate of 39%. As for maximum tax revenue.  Maximum income tax revenue in real terms was in 2000 at $1.0T; individual income tax revenue was $920 billion (2000 dollars) in 2008.  Maximum overall tax revenue (nominal, not real) was in 2007, but that is only due to record corporate and social security tax revenue -- and those rates were unchanged from the 1990s.  Your individual income tax cuts can't claim credit for additional revenue from other, unchanged, taxes.

Profile Search
All Forums : [GENERAL] : General Discussion : Current Events > U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security

    Page 1 of 11 :

Jump to:
0 Members Subscribed To This Topic