Completely Irresponsible

[packsaddle 753]

No Kahuna, Cuts in those programs will merely result in shortened life spans. If those old people want to really do something nice for their grandchildren, if they can't support themselves without the welfare program, they should just die quickly enough not to bankrupt their children in the process. Better that it should happen to the elderly than for the children. But the cuts will probably affect both.

 

Besides a bunch of WWI veterans already learned what happens during Washington protests. Not one of our prouder moments in history.

 

Edit: How about this? Increase the retirement age by a couple of years.

 

Or...No retiree who has more than $XX external income collects any SS benefits, essentially a graduated means test. I know persons who will retire with incomes in mid-to-high 6 figures. Why should they get SS on top of that? SS was originally intended to be a 'safety net' (read - welfare).

 

Remove the income cap on contributions. Unless the statistic is wrong, the top 1% of Americans have 70% of the wealth. Why exempt them from the tax?

 

To compensate them for their sacrifice, remove the limit to tax-free external income after retirement. Those top 1% persons (and everyone else) can then enjoy their capital gains (or any other income) completely tax free. Wow, think of the jobs that will create...in India, Singapore, China.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Kahuna, Social Security is just an insurance program, eh? It takes current premiums and uses 'em to pay current beneficiaries. If it's smart in invests any excess premiums, but then we haven't been particularly smart.

 

If the insurer can't afford it or otherwise goes into default, then the insured doesn't get paid. That's the insured's fault for relying on the insurer without doin' their due diligence and keeping tabs on its financial health. Doesn't matter a lick if they were planning on it for retirement, any more than It did for the GM or Enron workers who planned on their pensions for retirement, and were left high and dry when those companies collapsed.

 

Now, yeh could argue that most citizens don't have the time, access, or expertise to keep track of da financial health of their pension provider or insurer. In that case, those citizens should pay those evil taxes to hire those meddlesome regulators who do have the time and expertise to track and enforce pension soundness or demand adequate reserves of insurers. Or in da case of Social Security, they should have voted for more responsible representatives. . Right now, quite a few have elected Tea Partiers who have essentially pledged to dismantle or default on those programs.

 

Any way yeh slice it, it comes down to personal responsibility.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"Social Security is just an insurance program, eh?"

 

Insurance program - yes, it does have some similarities to an insurance program. It also has similarities to a Ponzi Scheme. Also to an extortion racket.

 

Which similarities seem most relevant likely depends on one's leanings toward individualism and collectivism.

 

[Gary_Miller 10]

Beavah, using your logic of cutting a program just because its the biggest portion of the budget not logical at all. Especially when two of the programs SSI and Medicare are primarily funded by those who work paying into the programs. You can't cut base on the amount of the budget you have to first decide what the mission is then cut those areas that are not mission essential.

 

Using yours and many others logic would mean that because my mortgage, life insurance, automobile insurance, groceries and power are the biggest part of my budget that I should make my cuts there. When in reality most of my cuts should come from my discretionary spending money fast food, entertainment, TV, and other things that are not necessary to my families survival.

 

Or if you take my buisness, I'm a Farrier, it would mean making cuts in my purchase of Rasps, Nails, horseshoes, vehicle fuel, vehicle insurance, cell phone, and propane. Those are the areas where I spend the most money, however if I make cuts in anyone of those areas I can't do my work which means that I don't make any money.

 

While some of these items could be done away with for instance I could eliminate my cell phone and propane costs all together. But doing so would make the job more difficult. Getting rid of the Cell Phone would mean not being able to communicate with my customers during the day (mission essential). If I cut out the propane (Use for the forge) then I end up shaping shoes cold (more work more wear on my body) I also end up eliminating some of the services (less capability less money).

 

So you see the only places I have to cut is in the little areas of my budget the discretionary money. The area that make life easier but that are not essential in accomplishing what my mission is.

 

The same holds true for the government the cuts need to come from the none mission essential programs, not just the programs that are the largest part of the budget.

 

 

[Gary_Miller 10]

packsaddle, "I know persons who will retire with incomes in mid-to-high 6 figures. Why should they get SS on top of that?"

 

For no other reason than they and their employer paid into the program.

[Beavah 205]

Gary_Miller, yeh have to do the math. There's a reason why everyone who has served on a deficit reduction commission, Republican or Democrat, has come to da conclusion that it is necessary to raise revenues.

 

If you're 30% in da hole each year, and your "discretionary" spending amounts to only 20%, then even zeroing your discretionary spending won't get you to balanced. And that's where we're at, eh? And we all recognize that relatively little of that "discretionary" spending is truly discretionary. It's da FAA and the border patrol and the firefighters and the highways and the food inspectors. So maybe in the end, with much pain, yeh can get 4% out of that 20%, or a 20% cut in discretionary spending. A 20% cross the board cut to all programs like that would be huge, and painful. You'd see mass protests, you'd see a big jump in unemployment and homelessness, you'd see real downward pressure on da financial markets, you'd see aircraft accidents and foodborne illnesses and prison releases and bridge failures and you'd really hurt a lot of real people, but it might be doable. It's not *quite* as bad as what Greece is faced with.

 

Then yeh have to cut da remaining 26% from da military and entitlements. That means those programs are devastated. One must go, effectively, and one or two more have to be severely cut.

 

Cutting discretionary spending really is like laying off da ice cream cone when you owe owe thousands of dollars. It's nice and all, but the savings won't get yeh anywhere near balanced. That's how big the military and entitlement programs are compared to everything else. Cutting the entire NASA budget doesn't even pay for air conditioning for soldiers in overseas deployments.

 

B

[packsaddle 753]

"For no other reason than they and their employer paid into the program."

Then they also should get food stamps and other forms of welfare.

 

I think I get what you're saying. You don't like certain things so you want those eliminated. I get that. But as Beavah notes, you can eliminate ALL those things and still have the debt problem, most of it. One way or the other, the big things ARE going to get cut. Either we will do it as part of a (hopefully) rational plan or else the eventual calamity will make the selections for us.

[Kahuna 172]

I have no problem with reducing future social security benefits for people under about 55. Means testing would be okay. To reduce benefits for people whose only income is SS would be grossly unfair.

 

"Die quickly" Have you been mentored by Alan Grayson?(This message has been edited by kahuna)

[Beavah 205]

I have no problem with reducing future social security benefits for people under about 55.

 

That's not da way insurance works, of course. Insurers who are losin' money can both increase premiums or reduce da sort of benefit contracts available. Since raisin' more taxes is out because of the attitude of the tea party folks, the only choice is to reduce benefits. Not in the future, now. That's da consequence of the Tea Party tax pledge, if yeh want to reduce the deficit/balance the budget.

 

No question, it's rough for da seniors who relied on SS for their planning. Just like it was rough for those GM folks who relied on their company pension and saw it evaporate. That's what yeh get for not doin' due diligence. Many of us have been sayin' Social Security is a Ponzi scheme for decades now.

 

But I get where you're comin' from. I don't want to see a few million seniors get bankrupted either. Which is why I and every reasonable person who has ever looked at the problem believes yeh have to increase revenue, so as to give yeh the space to make more targeted and gradual reductions in benefits of the sort you're talkin' about. Now, for seniors, the best choice would be lettin' the Bush income tax cuts expire, because income taxes wouldn't affect seniors as much as a consumption tax like I and most conservative folks prefer.

 

If we hold to the Tea Party line, though, then the only choice is substantial to massive cuts in current senior benefits. That's what they want, after all, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[scoutingagain 20]

"To reduce benefits for people whose only income is SS would be grossly unfair. "

 

Seems to me reducing benefits to those who are younger just so those who elected leaders that overspent for years can get more benefits or those who have paid into the system for years and have also managed to save money so they have something more than SS would be unfair. Fair would be across the board benefit cuts or SS tax increases or both.

 

Means testing is something Nancy Pelosi would come up with.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

So...is that an argument FOR or AGAINST means testing? How about some actual reasons one way or the other so we can try to make sense out of your thoughts?

 

Edit: Kahuna, that's the second time I've been accused of being mentored by Grayson. The first time I had to look him up to figure out what they were talking about. Evidently we came up with this independently...convergent evolution? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gunny2862 11]

I've typed and deleted about three times and am still not sure exactly how to say what I'm trying to get at but here goes again... and due to the size and complexity of the issue I'm sure this will not capture all of the greater argument but...

If a family earned about 50-60 thousand in income, had just short of 400 thousand in debt, and were borrowing another 30-40 thousand a year. Wouldn't any financial adviser immediately tell them to a) reduce their expenses, b) quit borrowing, c)contact their creditors and give them a plan as to how they would be repaid, d) figure out a way to bring in more income.

 

From my perspective, it seems that the head of the family just wants to extract more income from the members of the family and continue the rest of the lifestyle. One of the members says yeah but make sure the older brother pays more because he earns more at his job. One of the members says no, you need to take less to let me invest part of what I earn into things that will ultimately bring in more money than you are forgoing at the moment, and possibly look at reducing the excess spending. And one of the members says no, it's not about taking more from what we earn the problem is the overspending and the resultant borrowing - when you deal with those we should talk about giving you more of our income but if those other issues are effectively dealt with we won't need to talk about taking more from us and until you do we'll do what we can to block the take more income answer because as long as you can take more from us you won't deal with the other avenues to fix this.

 

Now I know that's simplistic, but to the degree that it mirrors real life: Which one of the family members is being responsible? Why is it "Completely Irresponsible" to demand that the causes of the problem be dealt with first? Oh and while we're there, Why isn't the head of the family helping the members find jobs. And, in what way is taking money from one of the members and paying another of the members to stay home helping to solve the problem, when he should be scouring ways to find them a job that doesn't derive payment from his revenue but rather adds to the family revenue?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmm....

 

Not sure I quite got all that, Gunny, but I like your family analogy a lot. Let's flesh it out a bit, eh? Da family has been putting up grandma in da spare bedroom and helpin' her with her medical expenses, and those together account for more than half da income. They have a security system that costs tens of thousands of dollars, and also protects three neighborhood parks, two abandoned lots, the kids being tormented by da bully a few blocks over, and dad's favorite gas station across the lake. . But they feel they really need it, and it's a source of pride. Oh, yah, and last year young Alan and his buddy Phil accidentally burned down half da house. Mom thought he was old enough not to need direct supervision anymore and let him get out of sight, so he gambled with derivatives played with matches. It was awful but da family did what it had to do and borrowed a bunch to get through the crisis. It's still a sore spot, but dad values his marriage more than assigning blame.

 

What's da family to do?

 

Now, yeh could drop da cable TV service. That would save a few bucks. But Al uses da cable Internet for his high school homework, and yeh want him to do well in school. The money yeh save wouldn't even come close to payin' for grandma. Yeh could stop putting a few bucks each week in the church collection basket that helps other needy families, but that wouldn't even come close either. Yeh could stop payin' grandma's medical expenses and put her out on da street. That would work. Young Ryan even suggested that because he wants Grandma's room.

 

Since da the family can still borrow money at 1%, then one option is to borrow and pay for grandma and da security system that way. Tempting, but we all know that's a poor choice. However, borrowing money and buildin' an addition that yeh can rent out for income, that would be a good choice. So would borrowing money and paying for Ryan's education in math so he can get a better job, or borrowing to expand da family business. All of those would bring in more money each year than the loan cost. Most families, after all, start with a debt of several times gross family product for their home, and our family isn't there yet.

 

In a real family, of course, there'd also be no squabbling over who is paying more. Of course dad is payin' the most, he's got a good job. Of course Alan isn't payin' anything yet, he doesn't have a job, and sis is barely gettin' by in her startup. And in a real family, we wouldn't put grandma out, either. Dad and mom would sacrifice and take a second job to contribute more, while the family took da loan to invest for the longer term. Yah, sure, and dropped to basic cable.

 

Beavah

[BDPT00 41]

I like both Gunny's and Beavah's posts. Makes one think.

My perspective is much simpler, though broad brush...

Do we have more government this year than we had last year? Will we have even more next year? When do we stop growing the government?

(What percentage of our population works for the government? What was the percentage 10, 20, and 30 years ago? What will it be in ten years from now? Do we happen to notice a trend?)

And the follow-up questions are: Are we better off? Who controls our lives? Is a better life for our kids still the American dream?

BDPT00

[skeptic 992]

"Old age wipes all material obstructions from our vision. Looking down from up there, one wonders why grown men will spend their time in pursuit of pleasure in place of happiness; why legislators sacrifice the welfare of the people for the sake of party lines; why statesmen do not see that the only thing worth working for is 'the welfare of their fellow men'; why all legislators cannot realize that the practical way to reform the world is by teaching the public the real meaning of American democracy and how to live according to the Boy Scout Oath and Law, according to common sense, according to God's law."

 

MESSAGE FROM "UNCLE DAN" BEARD; SCOUTING MAGAZINE, January 1940