Closing that mandatory spending gap with tax cuts will be incredibly unpopular and economically dangerous.
Did you perhaps mean tax increases?
|
| |
Written By:
Sigivald
URL:
http://
|
|
today the pentagon released the actual cost of the iraq war at 1.5 trillion dollars. so much for fiscal responsibility. |
| |
Written By:
SLNTAX
URL:
http://
|
today the pentagon released the actual cost of the iraq war at 1.5 trillion dollars. so much for fiscal responsibility. At leat national defense is a constitutional use of our tax $$$. Same can’t be said for SS and Medicare. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
I think the government solution to the fiscal mess of the welfare state will be along the same lines as the solution to the fiscal mess of the sub-prime mortgages.
Print more money.
Monetary inflation is the tax the government doesn’t have to legislate.
Oh, and the $1.5 trillion for the Iraq war does not hold a candle to the $50 trillion of obiligations the welfare state represents.
|
| |
Written By:
tkc
URL:
http://
|
today the pentagon released the actual cost of the iraq war at 1.5 trillion dollars. so much for fiscal responsibility.
Wow. Why cant the anti-war idiots ever get their facts straight. Its as if they have to lie to make a point?
Here is the story from AP via usatoady which clearly says the report was not from the pentagon but was "according to a new report by Democrats on Congress’ Joint Economic Committee."
Back to the topic at hand, Social Security. It seems the only valid solution is to privatize Social Security and not just 4% like Bush wanted but the entire 15%. This will shrink the size of government which is always a good thing, and unshackle us from this massive ponzi scheme that is our current system. Here is an interesting page with some examples of the returns that could be achieved using private accounts. |
| |
Written By:
Irony Challenged
URL:
http://
|
At leat national defense is a constitutional use of our tax $$$. Same can’t be said for SS and Medicare. Or The Department of Energy (which was given $23.53 billion for FY 2006)....or The Department of Education $67.2 Billion /year...
Hell, I just cleared $362 Billion over the past four years by eliminating two useless, worthless and unconstitutional expenditures and I did it all in while having a cup of joe and watching House, MD.
Imagine what I could do in a week. |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
Or The Department of Energy (which was given $23.53 billion for FY 2006)....or The Department of Education $67.2 Billion /year... Keep up the good work.
today the pentagon released the actual cost of the iraq war at 1.5 trillion dollars. so much for fiscal responsibility.
You bought $300 golf clubs so I’m going to get a new purse!
WTF? Let me see if I get this straight, since there’s some spending you don’t lilke, all spending you like is in like Flin. Afetr all, if there HAD to be a spending cut it would start with that icky part you don’t like. |
| |
Written By:
Ryan
URL:
http://
|
money will be flowing from the general fund to social security This is the beginning of the repayment of those T-bills being held in that West Virginia filing cabinet on behalf of the Social Security Trust Fund.
For the past few years, many in the "reality-based community" have been saying that since the federal government has the power to tax, this will be painless.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, it sets up a double wammie of sorts. First lose the ability to use the Social Security "surplus" to finance the "deficit" in the general budget (this has been going on since LBJ) as it completely disappears, then to be followed by the need to finance the Social Security "deficit" .. err .. "repayment" out of the general budget.
Call this "deficit" .. err .. "repayment" whatever you want, but this "deficit" .. err .. "repayment" will become a line item in the federal general budget before the next President leaves office. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
Forgot to mention that the deficit" .. err .. "repayment" will grow ever year until the "famous" day of in 2046 (or such) when the whole thing in paid out of the federal budget when the Social Security Trust Fund goes dry.
Many politicians have been trying to say that the 2046 date is the "day of reckoning", but it will pass with a whimper compared to the date in the near future when the Social Security deficit" .. err .. "repayment" goes on budget.
Hiliary is trying her best to keep the smoke and mirrors fully functional till after the election, but the choices just keep getting worse as time goes on. If she wins, I expect that her "universal healthcare" will try to raid the Medicare fund to pay the Social Security deficit" .. err .. "repayment". This works, at least on paper, but really, just like Social Security, there is no money, no "lockbox", just IOUs.
I give Obama credit for not applying any more BS than necessary to the whole subject. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
WTF? Let me see if I get this straight, since there’s some spending you don’t lilke, all spending you like is in like Flin. Afetr all, if there HAD to be a spending cut it would start with that icky part you don’t like. It would start with the part that’s unconstitutional. |
| |
Written By:
Jordan
URL:
http://
|
Did you perhaps mean tax increases? Yes, thanks. Fixed it. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
|
I hope you’ll allow me a little analogy here and I’d appreciate any thoughts. I know comparing government budgets to household budgets isn’t perfect but I’m going to do it anyway. As I see it, for the past several decades the Social Security designated payroll taxes have, by exceeding SS expenditures, acted as a kind of credit card for the general budget spending. They have allowed administrations and congresses of both parties to spend more than the revenue would support less painfully than would otherwise have been the case. Now the card’s credit limit is approaching. The answer then, is not to increase the credit limit, by raising payroll taxes. Nor is it to transfer the balance to a lower interst card, by reducing benefits paid by SS. Rather the answer is to spend @#$@#$! less than you make. Thus SS is not the problem per se, but the spending habit that SS has supported. |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
There are several underlying assumptions in this argument that are not necessarily true. First, the assumption that deficits are bad. If that’s correct, we’ve been bad for a long time because the average Federal budget deficit for the past 40 years is 2.4% of GDP. The current deficit for FY 2007 was 1.2% of GDP. That’s actually much better than average. The government is not a household and it can operate at a deficit indefinitely. That does not mean a deficit of 1-2% of GDP is optimum, just that it is manageable.
Another assumption is that you can cut back a bureaucracy and cut spending to free up dollars for entitlements. Anyone who has watched the past few years as Rs and Ds fought shamelessly for their earmarks should know that spending is pretty much all legislators do. Without a strong political consensus, politicians and bureaucrats can outfight or outlast any single reform-minded political leader. GWB tried to do something reasonable about Social Security, but he was in a party of one.
Social Security would be relatively easy to fix compared to Medicare. The problem is not the details of a solution, but simply a lack of political will to engage in a solution that will, unfortunately, be more about spreading pain than gain. |
| |
Written By:
Kurt Brouwer
URL:
http://www,fundmasteryblog.com
|
Hey Jon, I’m so glad you’ve started blogging again. Where so many conservatives and liberals talk past each other, when I read you I learn things that are true even if the things that liberals say are also true. Such as how Social Security can not be "going bankrupt," but still cause a problem. Or how Republicans may be "attacking dissent," but Democrats are doing it just as openly.
(Also, LOL about Ron Paul being asked to donate $500 to the neo-Nazis.) |
| |
Written By:
Noumenon
URL:
http://
|
Do any of you reading this understand that the current Social Security "cash surplus" is just as phony as the "special bonds?"
For example. The actual surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments and program expenses was about $48.8 billion in Fy 2007. Of this amount, about $38.3 billion was returned to low-income workers via the EITC program. That left a cash surplus of about $10.5 billion for politicians to spend.
If you really want to understand all of this, the figures are right in front of you. You just have to know where to look. Try looking at my book, "Fool’s Gold." It is all right there.
If you do not understand the question, you cannot possibly come up with the answer.
Roy V. Dent |
| |
Written By:
Roy Dent
URL:
http://
|
