SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Obama Offers to Cut Social Safety Nets, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 6:44 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Obama has raised the issue of cutting Social Security and Medicare, the expensive welfare programs for old people, as a way out of damaging budget cuts.

From the article:Obama Offers to Cut Social Safety Nets

President Barack Obama raised anew the issue of cutting entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security as a way out of damaging budget cuts, a White House official said on Sunday, as both sides in Washington tried to limit a fiscal crisis that may soon hit millions of Americans.

Signaling he might be ready to explore a compromise to end automatic spending cuts that began late Friday, Obama mentioned reforming these entitlement programs in calls with lawmakers from both parties on Saturday afternoon.

These include the Social Security retirement program and Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs for the elderly, disabled and poor that are becoming more expensive as a large segment of the U.S. population hits retirement age.


Decreasing the size of social security checks and converting Medicare to a voucher system as proposed by Paul Ryan are under consideration again. Phasing out both programs would eliminate eliminate budget deficits and bring down the national debt WITHOUT any tax increases.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 6:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Decreasing the size of social security checks and converting Medicare to a voucher system as proposed by Paul Ryan are under consideration again. Phasing out both programs would eliminate eliminate budget deficits and bring down the national debt WITHOUT any tax increases."

Not really.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 6:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But these are important starts -- if Obama is sincere and not just posturing (like many in the GOP).

We simply cannot  solve our budget deficit problems without sacrificing chunks off the two elephants in the room:  social spending and defense.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10019
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 7:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How is it possible that the supposed big spending far left wing commie marxist socialist
is offering up medicare and ss cuts?

beyond the snark that we really the deficit problem the right wants people to believe(deficit
is shrinking faster than anytime since WW II. Granted that is in part because it increased
so fast starting in the Fall of 2008).  If Republicans gained power of the presidency and
congress tomorrow they would stop talking about the deficit and the larger debt as they took
power even if the deficit continued to increase.

as far as decreasing debt, the point isn't just to cut debt for the sake of cutting debt
but to do it in such a way that it reduces pain for as many people as possible. Heck if
debt was the only issue here then why not eliminate medicare, medicaid, the vast majority of
defense spending, etc....?  It would make no sense to solve the debt problem by first focusing
in on the programs where the most vulnerable get hit the hardest(on the other hand that isn't
to say nothing in medicare can't be cut. I'm not saying that)


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 7:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Boehner doesn't even want to cut the debt: he's on the record again recently demanding all revenue increases from any loophole closing etc. MUST be matched by spending cuts: meaning those revenue increases would have ZERO effect on reducing the deficit.

Still with his lips firmly planted on The Grovers's... pledge.

Oh and Sperling's "reform" leaves a lot of room for changes other than cutting benefits. Such as raising the Payroll Tax limit some thousands of dollars. No doubt why that term is used. Look at all the previous White House proposals on both of them, ZERO relation to Ryan's effective elimination of those programs.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 7:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
Boehner doesn't even want to cut the debt: he's on the record again recently demanding all revenue increases from any loophole closing etc. MUST be matched by spending cuts...

Without taking sides... but I think the term "loophole" is loaded.

Of course, we know that many of the rich are actually paying a disproportionately smaller share of taxes -- so there are bona fide loopholes that do need to be closed.  But when using the term "loophole" -- I like to see that label used more in conjunction with specifics.  Currently, that term gets thrown around a lot by Democrats -- to basically demonize the other side.  Hey, we're not raising taxes, we're just 'closing loopholes' and look how the Republicans are fighting us...  Yeah.

While I am all in favor of a more equitable tax system -- I also see the need for both tax revenues and spending cuts.  Stating the obvious, we can't close the deficit by relying on just the revenue side or just the spending side.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 7:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:37 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
Boehner doesn't even want to cut the debt: he's on the record again recently demanding all revenue increases from any loophole closing etc. MUST be matched by spending cuts...

Without taking sides... but I think the term "loophole" is loaded.

Of course, we know that many of the rich are actually paying a disproportionately smaller share of taxes -- so there are bona fide loopholes that do need to be closed.  But when using the term "loophole" -- I like to see that label used more in conjunction with specifics.  Currently, that term gets thrown around a lot by Democrats -- to basically demonize the other side.  Hey, we're not raising taxes, we're just 'closing loopholes' and look how the Republicans are fighting us...  Yeah.

While I am all in favor of a more equitable tax system -- I also see the need for both tax revenues and spending cuts.  Stating the obvious, we can't close the deficit by relying on just the revenue side or just the spending side.

RE: "loophole": You may be right.

It does contain the issue though, centering the subject not on "rates" but on to whom those rates apply or do not apply based on the regulations: aka "loopholes".

And to myself, equality under the law means equality under the TAX law as well: no playing favorites with the tax code. Something needs a subsidy in the government's judgement? Write a check all out in the daylight in front of everybody.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 7:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
...[A]ll revenue increases from any loophole closing etc. MUST be matched by spending cuts: meaning those revenue increases would have ZERO effect on reducing the deficit.

ZERO effect on reducing the deficit??

Example:

Revenue     100
Expenses    160

Deficit         ( 60)


Say we increase taxes by 20 -- and we find cuts worth 20 - ergo:

Revenue     120
Expenses    140

Deficit         ( 20)

Matching 20 increase in revenue with 20 decrease in spending nets you a 40 decrease in deficit.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 8:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:54 pm)
QUOTE
And to myself, equality under the law means equality under the TAX law as well: no playing favorites with the tax code. Something needs a subsidy in the government's judgement? Write a check all out in the daylight in front of everybody.

Yes, agree.  And the way to do that is to truly simplify our tax code.  But few on either side of the aisle really want that.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 8:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:57 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
...[A]ll revenue increases from any loophole closing etc. MUST be matched by spending cuts: meaning those revenue increases would have ZERO effect on reducing the deficit.

ZERO effect on reducing the deficit??
Example:
Revenue     100
Expenses    160
Deficit         ( 60)
Say we increase taxes by 20 -- and we find cuts worth 20 - ergo:
Revenue     120
Expenses    140
Deficit         ( 20)
Matching 20 increase in revenue with 20 decrease in spending nets you a 40 decrease in deficit.

You're right, increasing revenue and decreasing spending would be additive without regard to their ratio: I was thinking of this portion of the Norquist pledge:
"TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Which is solely about "loopholes" and rates, not spending.

Though Boehner, in the remarks as I recall them, did not at all seem to be endorsing a 1:1 ratio of spending to revenue increase or anything close to that. He's rejected in the past 3:1 spending reduction to revenue increase.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 8:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 5:04 pm)
QUOTE
You're right: I was thinking of this portion of the Norquist pledge:
"TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Which is solely about "loopholes" and rates.

Though Boehner, in the remarks as I recall them, did not at all seem to be endorsing a 1:1 ratio of spending to revenue increase or anything close to that. He's rejected in the past 3:1 spending reduction to revenue increase.

I see.  And yeah, any attempt to solve our deficit problem with essentially no net increase in taxes is one irresponsible fantasy. A pandering to unthinking voters in its worst form.

As mentioned, we need both.  My own "seat of the pants" hunch is that we do have a lot of waste within our government.  I do not see the need for a 1:1 ratio.  Maybe 2:1 or even 3:1 sounds more reasonable.  Imagine if each year, we "only" spend as much on defense as the next 3 countries combined -- instead of seventeen?  What a huge chunk that would be.  And then we still have social spending that we can (and must) also look into.  I really believe there is an awful lot that need cutting. And what remains ought to be what is truly needed and truly beneficial to our society -- and those (and only those) -- we can raise the needed revenues to pay for them.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7086
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 8:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yeah, think we've covered it here before.  I'd be for partial voucher-care starting now for anyone at 75 or 80, and partial privatization of Soc. Sec for younger workers (put a few quarters in the stock market in their 20's as a cohort and convert to bonds over time).  

All US workers should get to enjoy 62 into their 70's (if they live) but at 80 plus, a patient isn't going to be the same after an operation.  It should start now, though.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 9:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 03 2013, 5:09 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 5:04 pm)
QUOTE
You're right: I was thinking of this portion of the Norquist pledge:
"TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Which is solely about "loopholes" and rates.

Though Boehner, in the remarks as I recall them, did not at all seem to be endorsing a 1:1 ratio of spending to revenue increase or anything close to that. He's rejected in the past 3:1 spending reduction to revenue increase.

I see.  And yeah, any attempt to solve our deficit problem with essentially no net increase in taxes is one irresponsible fantasy. A pandering to unthinking voters in its worst form.

As mentioned, we need both.  My own "seat of the pants" hunch is that we do have a lot of waste within our government.  I do not see the need for a 1:1 ratio.  Maybe 2:1 or even 3:1 sounds more reasonable.  Imagine if each year, we "only" spend as much on defense as the next 3 countries combined -- instead of seventeen?  What a huge chunk that would be.  And then we still have social spending that we can (and must) also look into.  I really believe there is an awful lot that need cutting. And what remains ought to be what is truly needed and truly beneficial to our society -- and those (and only those) -- we can raise the needed revenues to pay for them.

I think I found the talking point he used today and I expect earlier this week:
"JOHN BOEHNER: We’ve got to find a way through our tax code to promote more economic growth in our country. We can do this by closing loopholes, bringing the rates down for all Americans, making the tax code fairer — it will promote more economic growth."

Which, as David Gregory pointed out, doesn't have any sort of historical record of growing the economy and so increasing revenues to lower the deficit.

ETA: On the ratio: yes, I don't have any sort of reasoned numbers so I probably would defer to Simpson Bowles who had presumably worked on it with depth. They had a 1:1 ratio which, IIRC, even a conservative like Sen. Coburn voted for.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 9:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 03 2013, 6:23 pm)
QUOTE
I think I found the talking point he used today and I expect earlier this week:
"JOHN BOEHNER: We’ve got to find a way through our tax code to promote more economic growth in our country. We can do this by closing loopholes, bringing the rates down for all Americans, making the tax code fairer — it will promote more economic growth."

Which, as David Gregory pointed out, doesn't have any sort of historical record of growing the economy and so increasing revenues to lower the deficit.

I agree with the fallacy (my view) of using the tax code to "grow the economy".

Separately, I am also leery of folks using the tax code for sundry social purposes.  I do not believe in using the tax code, as an example, to redistribute wealth from one sector of society to another.  I'd rather empower the perceived weaker sectors so they can compete effectively -- and not just at the bottom rung.

I'd rather we keep the code simple as heck -- and use it to fund needed government services in an equitable manner.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 9:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(SW Mtn backpacker @ Mar. 03 2013, 5:47 pm)
QUOTE
Yeah, think we've covered it here before.  I'd be for partial voucher-care starting now for anyone at 75 or 80, and partial privatization of Soc. Sec for younger workers (put a few quarters in the stock market in their 20's as a cohort and convert to bonds over time).  

All US workers should get to enjoy 62 into their 70's (if they live) but at 80 plus, a patient isn't going to be the same after an operation.  It should start now, though.

Any money the younger people put into private accounts they're not putting into funding the current Social Security obligations and so that widens the deficit.

How to get past that transition funding gap is a huge challenge for any elimination of Social Security (federal retirement model) in a change to a private retirement model. People sure won't stand for paying for BOTH at the same time that I can foresee.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 9:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am absolutely appalled at the idiocy of the “common wisdom”:


Before the Bush financial collapse: Which line changed? Which line has a “significant wiggle”? Is it the blue line or the green line?


Now, what would our debt have looked like if the blue line in the graph above had not had those dips?

Let's not even start talking about the inherent economic impacts, even those associated with spending we don't really need or want, such as our ridiculously overfunded military. Reducing any government spending without a plan to transition to the new levels in order to reduce the impact of the cuts and increase the effectiveness of the related "investments in human capital" will be, without any doubt whatsoever, catastrophic. (Access to health care resources increase productivity, for instance - cut that completely, or without any plan whatsoever - and without warning - and there will be huge impacts.)

The last two paragraphs in that article are significant for anyone attempting to actually understand from whence the deficit primarily originated:
QUOTE
At the heart of Washington's persistent fiscal crises is disagreement over how to slash the budget deficit and gain control of the $16.7 trillion national debt, bloated over the years by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and government stimulus for the ailing economy.

Government red ink also rose over the last decade after the enactment of across-the-board tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 secured by President George W. Bush.

There are a hell of a lot of people who have a hell of a lot of vacant space between their ears...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 10:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Paul Ryan paid for his college education with the social security benefits he received from his father's untimely death.  He got his, so I guess now would be an appropriate time for him to push an end to such injustices.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 10:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And that (the above post of mine) is the rational take on the situation, IMHO.

I keep reading other threads (like that current one on Sarah Palin), and all I see is the same old "grand standing" and posturing from the right. It's "shock value" and "attention-seeking", but never, never, ever "reason". No one in their right mind could believe most of the stuff I see posted here by the likes of that I see on that thread. "Obama is a socialist." "Romney is a centrist." If someone actually believes this stuff, they aren't paying attention.

That is to say, as most people know by now, having spent decades listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and all the rest of the pundits and politicians of "equivalent entertainment value" (thinking "mud wrestling" here), that the overwhelming priority of the right is "shock value" and "tweaking noses" - to get attention and suck money out of the pockets of the extremely gullible.

I can't explain the ones I see around here who are not "on the take". I guess they must be as stupid as they sound.

In short, as must be obvious to anyone: our primary problem is not "debt".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5106
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 04 2013, 9:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Despite his statements that he supported a 3:1 ration of spending cuts to revenue increases, the President has, in practice, called for immediate revenue (tax) increases in return for possibly, maybe cutting spending (some day)

I remain skeptical thaty he is serious now, but since he has been re-elected perhaps he can at least talk about it

As far as the tax code, there are loopholes and there are loopholes

Many of the so called loopholes are really mechanisms that have been created to allow breaks to certain groups either as a reward, or as an exercise in social engineering.

While I support simplifying the tax code, a good first step would be to simply cap deductions

But to do anything to raise taxes without addressing our spending problem is silly. It is like giving a drunk more booze simply because he is talking about drying out


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 04 2013, 12:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"But to do anything to raise taxes without addressing our spending problem is silly. "

So it's a very good thing NO-One is doing that eh?

Yeah, rassures me as well.
:)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 04 2013, 7:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Mar. 04 2013, 8:06 am)
QUOTE
“our spending problem”

“But to do anything to raise taxes without addressing our spending problem is silly. It is like giving a drunk more booze simply because he is talking about drying out “
Okay, so the website I linked to for that first image up there in post #16 is rejecting the traffic involved (or something), and only appears now and then - so I set the picture up to be hosted on my personal account.

Why would I do this? There's obviously no good reason, since the lack of recognition of the real problem as far as this particular subject is concerned - the denial that prevails here among the denizens of the right - will most likely not go away. As everyone must know by now, they’re simply attempting to leverage this politically – the “problem” doesn’t actually exist as they are insisting it does. (BillBab isn't going to suddenly realize that what he's saying is absolute bs.)

As I said in post #18:
...our primary problem is not "debt".
Now mull that over a bit - just one more time:
...our primary problem is not "debt".

And that is absolutely true. Look at this graph (the one that keeps disappearing from my post #16 above):

And, once again: Before the Bush financial collapse: Which line changed? Which line has a “significant wiggle”?

Is it the blue line (receipts/revenue) that moved significantly down? Or did the green line (outlays/expenditures) move significantly up?

If you take a look at debt vs. GDP, there is no significant increase in the proportion of debt. Go check it out! Again: our primary problem is not "debt". We have a lot of very serious problems, but debt isn’t even nearly one of the biggest.

The right keeps saying we're "spending too much" and claiming "we have too much debt" - but what caused that debt? Did we start spending more – or did we stop collecting enough revenue to support our expenditures (Bush tax cuts)?

Yeah, you may not like the level of federal expenditures that have been a fact of life since WWII, but that isn’t the same thing as saying “we have too much debt”.

Yeah, expenditures increased after the Bush financial collapse, which increased federal outlays significantly (at the end of that red line in the second graph). But most would agree that those expenditures were absolutely necessary to avoid financial collapse. You may argue that there was a lot of waste and inappropriate expenditure, but to argue that none of it was necessary at all is, to put it mildly, a severe form of insanity.

P.S. I know that the "debt problem" is just a political gambit. I know this. Based on the charts I've cited, you couldn't believe anything else, could you? (Well, unless you are a devotee of the right's latest "talking points"...)

Carry on, BillBab...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 05 2013, 8:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Gabby
QUOTE
Is it the blue line (receipts/revenue) that moved significantly down? Or did the green line (outlays/expenditures) move significantly up?

If you take a look at debt vs. GDP, there is no significant increase in the proportion of debt.


Good post and graph. It puts things in perspective.

But there are still calls to eliminate Social Security and change Medicare to a voucher system - in order to keep from addressing the problem of not enough revenue.

No one wants increased taxes, so it is hard to believe that Social Security and Medicare benefits won't be cut - or even eliminated entirely. Most older people are pretty well-off today and can afford cuts.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 05 2013, 5:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Good post and graph. It puts things in perspective."
Thanks, but anyone with any brain material at all knows that we are, of course, "overdrawn" a wee bit - but all I'm really saying here is that this particular problem isn't our most important. I know that both you and I know this. It's a matter of emphasis. The GOP (and others) are attempting to "use" this particular issue to divert attention away from the others and hammer the current administration in such a way that nothing can be done about these things. Strangely enough, it's working.

I contend that, should we solve the one that involves unemployment and the huge income and wealth inequity we currently support (these two are related: a recent article at the NY Times bemoaned the fact that the economy is starting to take off, but isn't generating jobs - though the "upper crust" is, like, "partying down"), the debt problem might even solve itself.

Then there's that "hoax": climate change.

Some really serious problems that no one is doing much of anything about, primarily because the do-nothings are flailing and screaming.
1) Unemployment (ABSOLUTELY our "most pressing concern" - the stuff out of which come revolutions and chaos)
2) Climate change (our very lives - and the lives of countless other species, both flora and fauna, are in the balance)
3) Infrastructure ($3 trillion in lost output, now to 2020)
4) Inequality (check - got that one)
5) Democracy (the current state of our "democracy", which is more and more dominated by moneyed interests)
Marketwatch: Five problems bigger than the national debt
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6315
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 05 2013, 5:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think we will have to fix #5 in order to fix all the others!

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 05 2013, 6:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Social Security does zero for the deficit as it's self-funding. Though the "trust fund" withdrawals do impact the treasury.

That's a "Full Faith and Credit" issue as the trust fund bought Treasury notes.....
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 07 2013, 7:28 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

One approach being discussed is raising the age for Medicare to 68. But the voucher proposal would allow the government to increase or decrease the size of the vouchers depending upon the state of the Federal budget.

There is some discussion about using both the age increase and vouchers.

Cutting the Medicare entitlement is back on the table though. From
Revisit Medicare Reform :

Medicare eligibility currently begins at age 65. Ryan's approach would transform the benefits program into one that would provide a fixed amount of money in a voucher that future seniors could apply to the cost of buying private health insurance or to buying coverage through traditional Medicare.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 07 2013, 7:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

High_Sierra_Fan
QUOTE
Social Security does zero for the deficit as it's self-funding.


Not exactly. The cost of Social Security, like Medicare, is part of the budget deficit - despite the so-called "trust funds". From Wikipedia's article, Federal Budget :

This annual surplus is credited to Social Security trust funds that hold special non-marketable Treasury securities. This surplus amount is commonly referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund". The proceeds are paid into the U.S. Treasury where they may be used for other government purposes.

So, over the years, the Social Security trust fund, like the Medicare fund, has in effect become part of the general budget. The Social Security trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2036, and funding from the general budget will have to supplement the taxes collected.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 07 2013, 8:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If we just eliminated Social Security and Medicare, think how much more money we would have to wage more war and kill more people and steal their ****!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 07 2013, 8:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

There should be no serious conversation about cutting either program. And of course, Paul Ryan nor Obama will ever have to personally rely on either, so wtf, slash it. But the slightest offensive budget cuts get earth shaking responses, so f#%*~€£ American.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
28 replies since Mar. 03 2013, 6:44 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Obama Offers to Cut Social Safety Nets
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions