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.
A Wall St. induced housing bubble, combined with the Bush tax cuts and a Republican love affair with war bankrupted this country. However, what do Republicans propose for tackling our debt problem, largely created by GOP policies? They propose a war on the elderly by cutting SS and Medicare.
I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute.
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever enacted by the federal government. It has alleviated millions from poverty, provides disability insurance, and old age survivor benefits at a fraction of the cost that a private sector could provide
While our health care spending is a problem, liberals have proposed valid solutions to this, such as a PO or a single payer, in which most of the developed world has shown to be cost effective.
Sadly, what are on the table for cuts in the upcoming talks? SS and Medicare. Did SS and Medicare drive our current debt problem? NO! Our economic crisis, fueled by Wall St, the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans love for war did.
It is simply baffling, albeit outright disgusting that some people use our current debt crisis to attack old people.
p.s. While I am railing against Republicans, Democrats don't deserve accolades. These people rather act like center-right politicians who negotiate with radically regressive republicans, then grow a set of balls and act liberal. They also had the chance to regulate toxic derivatives back during Clinton years, but decided to not too. People like Summers and Geithner found nice cozy jobs under the Obama administration who essentially turned into a Wall St. *****.
I am not partisan and simply don't lay all the blame Republicans, despite how detrimental to society they have become. Dems are hardly better.
Regardless, attacking old people should be off the table when dealing with our debt problem. They are not the cause, outside of increased health care spending. However, that is due to how current health care system is set up, not due to spending.
A Wall St. induced housing bubble, combined with the Bush tax cuts and a Republican love affair with war bankrupted this country. However, what do Republicans propose for tackling our debt problem, largely created by GOP policies? They propose a war on the elderly by cutting SS and Medicare.
I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute.
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever enacted by the federal government. It has alleviated millions from poverty, provides disability insurance, and old age survivor benefits at a fraction of the cost that a private sector could provide
While our health care spending is a problem, liberals have proposed valid solutions to this, such as a PO or a single payer, in which most of the developed world has shown to be cost effective.
Sadly, what are on the table for cuts in the upcoming talks? SS and Medicare. Did SS and Medicare drive our current debt problem? NO! Our economic crisis, fueled by Wall St, the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans love for war did.
It is simply baffling, albeit outright disgusting that some people use our current debt crisis to attack old people.
p.s. While I am railing against Republicans, Democrats don't deserve accolades. These people rather act like center-right politicians who negotiate with radically regressive republicans, then grow a set of balls and act liberal. They also had the chance to regulate toxic derivatives back during Clinton years, but decided to not too. People like Summers and Geithner found nice cozy jobs under the Obama administration who essentially turned into a Wall St. *****.
I am not partisan and simply don't lay all the blame Republicans, despite how detrimental to society they have become. Dems are hardly better.
Regardless, attacking old people should be off the table when dealing with our debt problem. They are not the cause, outside of increased health care spending. However, that is due to how current health care system is set up, not due to spending.
The two parties are essentially the same in this regard. <shrug>
Technically speaking, the government went bankrupt in 1933, two years before FICA was enacted. In 1933, Congress repudiated their promise to redeem their notes, in House Joint Resolution 192, June 1933.
Legal Tender Status
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
YOUR labor and YOUR property back their worthless IOUs. (Remember, they ARE bankrupt.)
Another consequence of the bankruptcy was a perpetual "temporary" condition.
Americans have lived for over 78 years under a state of emergency
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
" A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
"One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system's benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits."
Not insurance, no right to benefits and it was always just a tax...
D'oh...
A Wall St. induced housing bubble, combined with the Bush tax cuts and a Republican love affair with war bankrupted this country. However, what do Republicans propose for tackling our debt problem, largely created by GOP policies? They propose a war on the elderly by cutting SS and Medicare.
I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute.
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever enacted by the federal government. It has alleviated millions from poverty, provides disability insurance, and old age survivor benefits at a fraction of the cost that a private sector could provide
While our health care spending is a problem, liberals have proposed valid solutions to this, such as a PO or a single payer, in which most of the developed world has shown to be cost effective.
Sadly, what are on the table for cuts in the upcoming talks? SS and Medicare. Did SS and Medicare drive our current debt problem? NO! Our economic crisis, fueled by Wall St, the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans love for war did.
It is simply baffling, albeit outright disgusting that some people use our current debt crisis to attack old people.
p.s. While I am railing against Republicans, Democrats don't deserve accolades. These people rather act like center-right politicians who negotiate with radically regressive republicans, then grow a set of balls and act liberal. They also had the chance to regulate toxic derivatives back during Clinton years, but decided to not too. People like Summers and Geithner found nice cozy jobs under the Obama administration who essentially turned into a Wall St. *****.
I am not partisan and simply don't lay all the blame Republicans, despite how detrimental to society they have become. Dems are hardly better.
Regardless, attacking old people should be off the table when dealing with our debt problem. They are not the cause, outside of increased health care spending. However, that is due to how current health care system is set up, not due to spending.
It's interesting that you say "I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute" and yet make no mention of raising taxes on the top earners who already contribute the vast majority of taxes while receiving no extra benefits. And this while even your own interpretation of the financial crisis does not lay the blame at the feet of those taxpayers.
So you say we can't cut the benefits of the elderly to pay for GOP failures, but make no mention of the Democrat solution to confiscate more money from the top earners who are also not responsible for GOP failures.
Note for anyone reading this that I do not agree with the original poster's assessment of the economy, I am simply pointing out the flawed logic even if one does accept the "Bush as Antichrist" theory.
SS;Medicare and medicid are the fastest growig unsustanable parts of government.50% of governemt spendig is on entitlements but these threee could eventually consume 16% of the 18% of GDP that governamnt takes i from all sources. We see what continuing to incrase spendig leads to with the example of Greece.In time it even destroys the ablity to produce as we have seen.Once governamnt consumes so much private sector can not grow.
It's interesting that you say "I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute" and yet make no mention of raising taxes on the top earners who already contribute the vast majority of taxes while receiving no extra benefits. And this while even your own interpretation of the financial crisis does not lay the blame at the feet of those taxpayers.
So you say we can't cut the benefits of the elderly to pay for GOP failures, but make no mention of the Democrat solution to confiscate more money from the top earners who are also not responsible for GOP failures.
Note for anyone reading this that I do not agree with the original poster's assessment of the economy, I am simply pointing out the flawed logic even if one does accept the "Bush as Antichrist" theory.
I don't think going back to the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy is a bad thing. Plus, I would tax their capital gains at the same rate of ordinary income.
However, that is not my solution. My solution to solve our debt problem is to have a strong and robust economic recovery and that requires government spending on jobs and infrastructure.
The best policies to tackle our debt is to promote full recovery policies which is hiring back the 600,000 public employees who lost their jobs and invest into America. As the economy recovers, so does the tax base. As we invest into America into sound educational, environmental, health, and energy policy, the economy becomes more robust.
Then we can easily sustain any deficit spending.
So, perhaps you want to try this again when you are not delving into your vicarious victimization mode of Bush and the wealthy.
Wages and salaries are flat and declining, which is why you lost personal income tax revenues, however, the cut in the Capital Gains tax rate caused an increase in Capital Gains tax revenues.
Had the Capital Gains tax rate not been cut, you'd be in an even worse position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
However, what do Republicans propose for tackling our debt problem, largely created by GOP policies? They propose a war on the elderly by cutting SS and Medicare.
I'm not aware of any specific plans. Do you have something concrete and specific, or are you just ranting in another Straw Man thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
I really don't understand how dishonest a person can get that they want to attack the elderly for our debt problems in which they did not contribute.
Um, the "elderly" were not yet retired and working in the 1990s....they elected Blow Job Bill who created your housing bubble, and they obviously did not push for an increase in the FICA/SECA tax rates to fund Social Security, nor did they push for an increase in the HI tax rates or accept cuts to Medicare to keep it solvent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever enacted by the federal government. It has alleviated millions from poverty, provides disability insurance, and old age survivor benefits at a fraction of the cost that a private sector could provide.
Both programs are total failures, because they are Ponzi Schemes.
Regarding your cost claims.......I can debunk that easily.....let's see....
Minimum wage worker pays $96/month in FICA taxes (currently) and gets $763/month in benefits.
or
Minimum wage workers pays $21/month for private end-of-life-retirement insurance and gets $1,600/month in benefits.
Yes, I can definitely see where a program that costs more and pays back less is superior to a program that costs less and pays more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
While our health care spending is a problem, liberals have proposed valid solutions to this, such as a PO or a single payer, in which most of the developed world has shown to be cost effective.
You have no understanding of how health care systems work in other countries. When you gain some measure of understanding, let us know, and then we can have a rational discussion based on facts, instead of emotional rants.
Now, read and weep....
Quote:
Following the many health care expenditure regulation plans adopted over the last several years, most of the people questioned felt that health care expenditure was being limited. More than half of the people questioned (51.4%) approved of the need to limit health care expenditure. Attitudes about the principle of restricting health care expenditure varied however depending on the sociodemographic and medical features of the people questioned.
Sub-group analysis of the respondents showed a significant difference between people with chronic disease and those without (p=0.001). More of the people without chronic disease were in support of restricting health care expenditure. A significant difference was also found according to
educational status. People who had reached the BAC level were least in support of restricting
health care expenditure (p=0.01). On the other hand there were no significant differences between the sexes.
Source: RATIONING HEALTH CARE IN EUROPE – FRANCE, D. Benamouzig & R. Launois (2004)
"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
When you finish digesting that, go study these laws...
You are familiar with their laws, aren't you? This will get you started...
Austria: Medically necessary, sufficient, appropriate (see General Social Insurance Act (ASVG), §133[2])
Belgium: Medical necessity, activity, cost effectiveness, safety (by Royal Decree)
France: Inscription of new medical and surgical procedures after advice of ANAES on efficacy and safety
Germany: Medically necessary, effective, cost effective (see Social Code Book (SGB) V, §135[1])
Luxembourg:
Sufficient, appropriate (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 17,1)
or
Medically necessary, effective, efficient (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 23,1)
Netherlands: Medically necessary (see Sickness Fund Act (ZFW), preamble)
Switzerland: Effective, appropriate, cost-efficient (see Swiss Insurance Law (KVG), §32)
The UK also has similar criteria....
"Appropriateness criteria govern when and for whom a treatment or service included in the benefits package is funded. Appropriateness criteria may entail clinical criteria that a patient has to meet before a given treatment is deemed appropriate and therefore funded."
....and then when you are ready to enter Realityâ„¢ and accept the fact that other countries ration health care, and that health costs less in other countries because the governments spend less --- and then ration, deny, delay and dilute health care to stay on budget --- and that the effective tax rates are more than you are paying now for better quality health care, let us know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Sadly, what are on the table for cuts in the upcoming talks? SS and Medicare. Did SS and Medicare drive our current debt problem? NO! Our economic crisis, fueled by Wall St, the Bush tax cuts, and Republicans love for war did.
The Bush Tax Cuts kept you out of a recession for some time, and the wars are necessary, unless you are willing to give up your way of life, your standard of living and your life-style.
You cannot fund Social Security and Medicare at present.
There are no possible reforms to Social Security that will keep it from collapsing in 2023-2024. You can increase the age of retirement or means test (you're already means testing anyway) or "tax the rich" or anything else.
This is another instance where you simply refuse to accept Realityâ„¢. Both Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi-Schemes. You do not have enough people working to fund them, you do not have enough workers per beneficiaries, your wages are not high enough, your labor participation rate is not high enough....
....and the Social Security taxes are not high enough.
The Silent Generation got slammed with a 520% FICA tax rate increase to keep Social Security solvent. The Boomers took a 71% FICA tax rate increase to keep Social Security solvent.
If Generation X and Generation Y want Social Security, then they must take a FICA tax rate increase of ~250% and they must accept the negative consequences to the economy as a result.
If you want to keep Medicare, then you are going to have institute "death panels" and start rationing health care, plus you'll have to raise the HI tax rate.
Instead of railing and flailing, you might want to start looking for actual solutions and figure out how you are going to deal with negative impact to your economy, which will be the loss of more jobs....permanently.
Economically...
Mircea
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.
