Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-Bring our troops homes, saving hundreds of billions.
-These hundreds of billions will ensure that those dependent on the medicare/SS programs will get benefits.
-Then allow those under a certain age the opportunity to opt out, and eventually phase social security out.
IMO, liberals might have a point on public medical care, but the government involving itself in retirement needs to end.
I support bringing the troops home, and cutting defense drastically. That part I like.
I don't think we should kill social security. It is, and always has never been a complete retirement solution. Its a safety net, nothing more, nothing less. I think the retirement age should be raised every time life expectancy goes up though.
I'm in support of full government healthcare, with limits on what procedures will be done. Supplemental private insurance to make up that difference.
Part of the time I like Ron Paul, but he is to idealistic as well. You've got to work with what the majority supports, or change their mind. When 80% of Americans want social security and medicare in their current forms, its not really feasible to change everyones mind.
[quote=MTAtech;18890744]Since were in the worst economic condition since the Great Depression, it's a good thing those government programs are in place. Otherwise, we'd be in a depression.
Please also be aware that Obama hasn't increased government programs. These government programs are unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged — because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we're seeing isn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we're seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump...
I support bringing the troops home, and cutting defense drastically. That part I like.
I don't think we should kill social security. It is, and always has never been a complete retirement solution. Its a safety net, nothing more, nothing less. I think the retirement age should be raised every time life expectancy goes up though.
I'm in support of full government healthcare, with limits on what procedures will be done. Supplemental private insurance to make up that difference.
Part of the time I like Ron Paul, but he is to idealistic as well. You've got to work with what the majority supports, or change their mind. When 80% of Americans want social security and medicare in their current forms, its not really feasible to change everyones mind.
Since we are not a democracy, 80% of Americans wanting social security and medicare in its current forms is a completely useless statistic. These Americans only want it because it's a handout, without considering the fact that we have $65 trillion in unfunded, undiscounted obligations in those two programs. Social security and medicare in its current form are impossible to pursue in the medium and long term. You talk and talk about maintaining these two programs and you fail to provide a plan by which these will be funded.
The plan you describe doesn't fit with the numbers. One can eliminate the entire Defense Dept. and the deficit will still be in the red. One can eliminate the entire discretionary budget and the deficit will still be in the red.
Any adult conversation about deficits must include tax increases. That's something that Ron Paul will not consider.
Why does it have to include tax increases? Why can't we decrease spending? Spending is the problem. We are already overtaxed enough as it is: if we weren't overtaxed, corporations wouldn't be offshoring.
Im holding out hope that the debt ceiling wont be raised and he will be forced to work with the revenue coming in...
Im also hoping that after 60 days of war congress defunds his illegal military adventure in Libya...
Then Id like to see him Impeached...
HOPE AND CHANGE
It's clear that you don't know what the debt ceiling is. The debt ceiling is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised that means that the government cannot borrow anything immediately.
In short, if lawmakers fail to raise the ceiling this year, they will have two choices, both awful.
They could either cut spending or raise taxes by as much as $738 billion just to cover the period from April 1 through Sept. 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. Or they could acknowledge that the country would be unable to pay what it owes in full and the United States could effectively default on some of its obligations.
The first option would be impossible to execute without negative economic repercussions.
And the second option could cripple the economy and send world markets into a tailspin.
That means that senior citizens with T-bills maturing won;t get their money. It would also mean that the stock market would fall like a stone; you couldn't borrow from banks because their government securities couldn't be collateralize; and the value of existing government notes would fall radically.
Since were in the worst economic condition since the Great Depression, it's a good thing those government programs are in place. Otherwise, we'd be in a depression.
Please also be aware that Obama hasn't increased government programs. These government programs are unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged — because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we're seeing isn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we're seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump...
....that the government caused.
So aptly put. Our government is saving us from the financial ruin they caused.
I know that Obama is a completely different person in "campaign mode" but what is he campaigning on this time around?
"Vote for me and I'll give you a waiver from 0bamaCare. My opponent does not care about the people, and will let you all suffer under the full weight of 0bamaCare."
Why does it have to include tax increases? Why can't we decrease spending? Spending is the problem. We are already overtaxed enough as it is: if we weren't overtaxed, corporations wouldn't be offshoring.
First, the U.S. has one of the lowest tax-rates of Western nations.
Second, it's a revenue problem not a spending problem. Under Clinton, we ran four straight years of surplus until Bush cut taxes in 2001. Then revenues fell. Then they fell again went Bush cut taxes in 2003.
One way to address this claim is to ask, where are the huge new federal programs?
According to Nobel economist Paul Krugman:
Quote:
The Affordable Care Act has not yet kicked in; the stimulus, such as it was, is fading out; where is this big government surge?
In answer, the peddlers of this myth point to the fact — which is true — that federal spending as a share of GDP has risen, from 19.6 percent in fiscal 2007 to 23.6 percent in fiscal 2010. (I use 2007 here as the last pre-Great Recession year). But what’s behind that rise?
A large part of it is a slowdown in GDP rather than an accelerated rise in government spending. Nominal GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007; it only rose at a 1.7 percent rate from 2007 to 2010. How much would the ratio of spending to GDP have gone up if spending had stayed the same, but there had not been a slowdown? Here’s the answer:
Quote:
So about half of the rise in the ratio is due to a fall in the denominator rather than a rise in the numerator.
That still leaves a significant rise in spending. What’s that about? Here’s one way to look at the federal budget; I compare growth rates in spending from 2000 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2010:
Quote:
“Income security” is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged — because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we’re seeing isn’t some drastic expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
