SSI Trust fund

[Hobbes]

2011 Numbers:

DoEnergy - 32.7B
DoEducation - 65.5B
EPA - 10.7B
_____________________
Total - 109B


Mandatory SS Outlay(not counting SSI) - 725B

 

[TerryMiller]

2011 Numbers:

DoEnergy - 32.7B
DoEducation - 65.5B
EPA - 10.7B
_____________________
Total - 109B


Mandatory SS Outlay(not counting SSI) - 725B

Hey, its a start and you have to start somewhere and sometime or nothing gets done. Look at the issue of drilling for oil in this country. For years, the liberals mantra for the idea of drilling was that it would take "x" number of years before that oil ever got online. However, if we had started drilling DECADES ago, that oil would be flowing now and benefiting everyone in America. As for spending, lets start cutting right now and continue until this country's debt is manageable again. To do otherwise is pure stupidity. Guess that indicates my opinion of Obama and his administration officials that want to keep believing in the Keynesian philosophy of economics.

Or, as I've asked before, are they just evil in that they want to destroy this country's greatness?

 

[inactive]

Well, considering what the Government did with the bondholders of GM and Chrysler, I wouldn't be too optimistic about the .gov debt and the "security" of holding bonds.

Are you referring to the fact they they told the bondholders, who are supposed to be first in line in collecting back any funds (in front of common and preferred stockholders), to go pound sand?

Not doubting or inferring anything, just clarifying.

 

[Hobbes]

We had a modest a government surplus when W was inaugurated that could have been used to shore up the SS trust fund(we've known this SS shortfall was coming for decades).
Instead, we got 2 rounds of Bush tax cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy.
"The People Deserve A Refund" was a great R campaign slogan in 2003 wasn't it?

 

[TerryMiller]

Are you referring to the fact they they told the bondholders, who are supposed to be first in line in collecting back any funds (in front of common and preferred stockholders), to go pound sand?

Not doubting or inferring anything, just clarifying.

Yes, my understanding is that the bondholders with GM and Chrysler got hosed by the program to "bail out" the auto manufacturers.

 

[TerryMiller]

We had a modest a government surplus when W was inaugurated that could have been used to shore up the SS trust fund(we've known this SS shortfall was coming for decades).
Instead, we got 2 rounds of Bush tax cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy.
"The People Deserve A Refund" was a great R campaign slogan in 2003 wasn't it?

Keep in mind that the effects of 9/11/01 had a factor on that surplus as well. That includes the actual attack and necessary defensive moves made by the government, the effect of the stock market plunge and the wars to follow. And yes, SSI shortfalls were known to be coming, so why didn't anyone before GWB do something as well? I lay the blame on both the Presidents and the Congress.

There have been numerous instances where tax cuts actually increased revenue to the government during my life-time. It occurred following JFK's, Reagan's, and GW Bush's tax cuts. I'm also thinking that the same effect occurred during the '20's and late '40's. So, if there were increased revenues from those cuts, why couldn't Congress and the Presidents reduce spending instead of doing more spending?

Also, since during GWB's terms, the employment rates were much better as a result of "the rich" actually expanding their businesses and hiring people. I know you probably don't want to believe that tax cuts have a "trickle-down" effect, but from what I have seen, it is true.

Also, the people always deserve a refund. This nation was formed on the basis of limited government and that should apply to government regulations, taxes, and spending. It is time to get back to fiscal responsibility, not unlimited power to the government. As a gun owner, that should be of concern, unless you think that "certain" people shouldn't be regulated the same as the general populace.

 

[Hobbes]

The Bush tax cuts added to the deficit.

Republicans love to hold up the example of the JFK tax cuts that increased revenue.
Well guess what? The top personal tax rate under Ike was 90%.
JFK cut it to something like 65% and it did increase revenue.

There comes a point of diminishing returns where tax cuts add to the deficit instead of increasing revenue.
That's what George's tax cuts did, add to the deficit.
Why did we not have budget surpluses in 2005, 2006, 2007? HMMMM?

Still republicans keep chanting "Tax cut" Tax cut" "Tax cut" and promising it will stimulate the economy so much we will have more money to spend.

Hey, I have an idea.
If cutting taxes brings in more revenue, why don't we just cut taxes to 0% and then we will have an infinite amount of revenue coming in.

 

[Hobbes]

I think you've been bamboozled into robbing Peter to pay Paul, and guess what?
You're not Paul.

 

[TerryMiller]

The Bush tax cuts added to the deficit.

Republicans love to hold up the example of the JFK tax cuts that increased revenue.
Well guess what? The top personal tax rate under Ike was 90%.
JFK cut it to something like 65% and it did increase revenue.

There comes a point of diminishing returns where tax cuts add to the deficit instead of increasing revenue.
That's what George's tax cuts did, add to the deficit.
Why did we not have budget surpluses in 2005, 2006, 2007? HMMMM?

Still republicans keep chanting "Tax cut" Tax cut" "Tax cut" and promising it will stimulate the economy so much we will have more money to spend.

Hey, I have an idea.
If cutting taxes brings in more revenue, why don't we just cut taxes to 0% and then we will have an infinite amount of revenue coming in.

So many wish to ignore that a deficit occurs because more is spent than what is brought in with revenues. Bush's tax cuts did increase revenues, but it was the spending that creates the deficit. 9/11 was a factor in that as I mentioned before with regards to the increased spending. There was also the prescription drug deal that was a big boondoggle as well.

What should have occurred with the increased spending with the wars was to reduce spending elsewhere, but good luck with getting politicians to agree with doing that.

Part of the increase in revenues comes because of the additional employment in a good economy. If you have more people paying a limited tax, you will obviously have more revenue. So yes, some taxes are needed.

As for your idea of 0% taxes, why don't we just have a flat tax or "fair tax" and let everyone pay taxes instead of mostly the top 50% of the wage earners? The bottom 50% of the earners only pay something like 3% of the total taxes for the country while the top 50% pays 97%. If you want "fair" taxes, then everyone should pay the same percentage, regardless of income amount.

 

[Hobbes]

So many wish to ignore that a deficit occurs because more is spent than what is brought in with revenues. Bush's tax cuts did increase revenues, but it was the spending that creates the deficit. 9/11 was a factor in that as I mentioned before with regards to the increased spending. There was also the prescription drug deal that was a big boondoggle as well.

What should have occurred with the increased spending with the wars was to reduce spending elsewhere, but good luck with getting politicians to agree with doing that.

Part of the increase in revenues comes because of the additional employment in a good economy. If you have more people paying a limited tax, you will obviously have more revenue. So yes, some taxes are needed.

As for your idea of 0% taxes, why don't we just have a flat tax or "fair tax" and let everyone pay taxes instead of mostly the top 50% of the wage earners? The bottom 50% of the earners only pay something like 3% of the total taxes for the country while the top 50% pays 97%. If you want "fair" taxes, then everyone should pay the same percentage, regardless of income amount.

Who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the WH?
Who was running the government when medicare part D was passed?
Who controlled congress when Bush proposed his SS fix?

That's not to say the democrats are any better cause they're not. But don't point fingers and try to lay the sins of the republicans at the feet of democrats.