- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,148
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Exactly right. but it isn't just Washington. It's the disconnect the public has that factors into this as well.
Exactly right. but it isn't just Washington. It's the disconnect the public has that factors into this as well.
Boo you should know better than this. Social security is not a driver of the current deficit, even the president said so today at his press conference. It needs to be adjusted like they did in the 80's to insure it will be viable down the road. Same goes for medicare although the problems are harder to fix.
Politicians seem to be throwing social security and medicare into the pot because it is a good scare tactic. remember those programs are funded by seperate taxes. Neither program is being funded by general funds. Also putting that money aside shows just how difficult the problem is, which none of these pols want to acknowledge.
Boo you should know better than this. Social security is not a driver of the current deficit, even the president said so today at his press conference.
Driver? Not sure that is the word I used, but the largest components of the budget involve Medicare, SS, and the military. You have to address that if cuts are the way you want to go. I would target some specific cuts in the three, restructure in some cases, and increase taxes as we move forward. These things provide a service, and are important. However, leaving things as they is not wise. And if the deficit is a concern, you have to propose a plan that will actually reduce, and not just elect republicans and forget about it.
1. it is projected to be in the near future
2. if you give me back 7.65% + payroll 7.65%, you've left some wiggle room for increases in other tax rates some, effectively making elimination of entitlements able to potentiall "bring in more tax revenue". It's all coming from my pocket either way right?
First, being a democrat I have no interest in getting republicans elected. Social Security and Medicare are self funded through payroll taxes as you may know. While I agree that long term they are not viable and should be fixed now, that will not reduce our current deficit problem. So if you want specifics, look at what happened in the 80's with social security. They increased the age for retirement and increased the wage limit. This should be done now and should probably be automatically adjusted every decade using real actuarial assumptions. As to Medicare, probably have to increase the age requirement and also increase the payroll tax as this is more costly than any previous assumptions. The military should take a huge haircut. I am in favor of getting out of Afghanistan which saves $100 billion a year. I would also close foreign bases and get out of NATO. The goal would be to reduce military by 100-200 billion annually.
So real cuts and taxes for real problems. No pointing fingers back and forth about who did what when.
As what comes in for medicare and SS doesn't cover what goes out as I understand it, then it does contribute to deficit. In the beginning, again as I nderstand it, more were paying in than recieved benefits, making it viable. Today, with fewer people contributing than need the services, and with people living longer, a good thing mind you, it eats up more than comes in.
I am not suggesting the program be done away with, but without some changes, it likely won't stay viable. better to tackle them now.
Yes, I do see you make some suggestions, and these are effectively cuts, meaning less money will be paid out, and by cutting when you can use the services, you make a cut in the money that will be spent.
And as best I can tell, we largely agree.
"But the economy is bad , we can't raise taxes to pay down the deficit, it'll be worse!".
"But the economy is good, we can't raise taxes to pay down the deficit, it'll make it bad!".
Pretty much what I get from these people.
Might not be my choice, as I woudl support just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But, the concept that there needs to be an increase in taxes is sound. It is just a matter of which ones.
I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room ~
"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.
Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.
The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.
Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)
More fuzzy math. It depends on the economy getting better which is questionable with Obama as president
No the GOP has a mandate that came with the voters choice in 2010. The GOP is trying to get rid of bad law that will put a fiancial burden on taxpayers
So Obama is trying to get tax increases that already failed.
Shows how incompetent he is.
Republicans, who now control the House, are signaling they will be even less receptive.
The plan unveiled Monday includes tax increases for oil, gas and coal producers
Wealthy taxpayers would have their itemized deductions limited
"These policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today," Obama said in his budget message.
The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.
Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.
If The tax cuts were written in a way so as they stop after ten years, during the next presidents administration, then you could say that taxes went up under that president, though I think the honest way to put it is to say that the president let the tax cuts expire, but you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase, as no bill was passed in order to raise taxes. That's like saying Obama declared war on Iraq because the guy before him did so.
Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.
Very well, that is an accurate description of an event - i.e., "taxes increased." But you are describing that event as a specific action when no specific action is taken. It is not "a tax increase" - this phrase has the connotation of some agency being involved. The reversion to prior rates was included in the same law that passed the tax cuts, so the reversion is not a tax increase, but the expiration of a tax cut. "Expiration of tax cuts" is the valid statement. To refer to them as a tax increase is clearly deceptive spin. They were never intended to be permanent tax cuts. Never, at least, as they were advertised to the American people - who to do this day continue to rate budget priorities more highly than those tax cuts. The Republican Party needs to get to work representing the American people and stop trying to rob them on behalf of rich campaign contributors.
Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts.
What do you mean that the tax cuts for the rich depend on the economy getting better?
Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguements.
No the answer is quit spending and stop all subsidies
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?