Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
It's not going to happen: Boehner has already turned it down. Possibly because he and the rest of the GOP House caucus are wary of a Trojan horse. Just another step in the budget-crisis minuet.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
I don't see why the GOP gets no blame. It's their budget this proposal comes from...and they refuse to vote on the budget until this portion, and even more cuts, are approved. They are both to blame for proposing these cuts. Blaming one or the other is very disingenuous.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
I'm not sure how getting more tax revenue is a trojan horse if the idea is crystal clear for everyone to see?
|
Crystal clear?
I'd be happy if the three of you actually understood what you read.
What's wrong with this very slanted reporting?
"Under a proposal that would cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years,..."
Do you understand that means the annual Budget Deficit would be reduced by $180 Billion per year?
It means ~$1 TRILLION will still be added to the National Debt each year for 10 years....
"That change would result in lower payments to some beneficiaries of the Social Security program for retirees...."
That is an absolute lie. I have wonder why the three of you didn't jump all over such a blatant distortion of the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
You're just buying into right wing propaganda. Your chart is meaningless, because worker productivity has skyrocketed to make up for the difference.
|
Worker productivity is of no relevance and has no bearing on anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
You got fooled because somebody flashed a chart in front of your eyes and you don't know any better.
Here I'll let the experts explain your stupidity to you
|
Dean Baker is an expert?
You can tell him from me he's a friggin' jack-ass. He's clueless and his blather is nothing but disinformation.
Only someone like Göbbels would repeat the same lie over and over....so at least you and Dean Butt-head have something in common. You both might want to read this.....
Table IV.B2.—Covered Workers and Beneficiaries, Calendar Years 1945-2090
"The cost rate then rises rapidly between 2017 and 2035, primarily because the number of beneficiaries rises much more rapidly than the number of covered workers as the baby-boom generation retires.
Compared to the 2011 level of 35 beneficiaries per 100 covered workers, the Trustees project that this ratio will rise to 49 by 2035 under the intermediate assumptions because the growth in beneficiaries greatly exceeds the growth in workers.
For each alternative, the curve in figure IV.B2 is strikingly similar to the corresponding cost-rate curve in figure IV.B1. This similarity emphasizes the extent to which the cost rate is determined by the age distribution of the population.
The cost rate is essentially the product of the number of beneficiaries and their average benefit, divided by the product of the number of covered workers and their average taxable earnings. For this reason, the pattern of the annual cost rates is similar to that of the annual ratios of beneficiaries to workers."
[bold and underlined emphasis mine]
Pages 52-54
112th Congress, 2d Session
House Document 112-102
THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS
As soon as you stop drinking Dean's Kool-Aid you won't look as silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Social Security does not contribute one dime to the deficit -- not one dime.
|
Uh, that depends on how the government converts the special treasury securities to cash.
Remember, this is the Real World....we don't just wave a magic wand and the IOUs instantly become cash to be electronically transferred to beneficiaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
In addition, the trust fund has a surplus of $2.7 trillion.
|
No, that would be a total fail.....the Trust Fund has a deficit of $20.5 TRILLION.
Trying reading the annual reports published by the Trustees for once in your life.
The Trust Fund represents future payments. You didn't collect enough in taxes for February so both the OASI and OADI Trust Funds lost a few $Billion ($6 Billion OASI and $3 Billion OADI). My guess is you lost money in March, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Moreover, back in the 1945, employee contributions were 1%. Now they are 6.2%.
|
Yeah, and...?
Dollar Benefits per Retiree = Workers (
n) * [Wage Rates*Hours] * in Tax Level
Wow.......8th Grade Math.
You are short 13.7 Million workers.....that is the number of workers you need working right now, this second, in order to keep the tax rate at 6.2%.
Your wages are flat/declining.....that trend will continue 30-40 more years.
So....you either cut benefits or raise the FICA payroll tax rate. By January 2016, one of the following two events must occur.....if you want to keep Social Security as you know it....
1] You must create 13.7 Million jobs to make up the difference. That isn't going to happen.
2] You must increase the FICA rate to 9.0%-9.2%....I don't see that happening either.
You might want to go back and review the period 1975 to 1983 when the Social Security Trust Fund was on the verge of collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Worse, the idea that in order to prevent having to cut benefits in the future we need to cut them now, makes no logical sense.
|
Benefits aren't being cut. That's just propaganda from Liberals. You cannot lose something you never had in the first place.
Changing the formula for the computation of Cost Of Living increases which may or may not even occur is not a cut in benefits no matter how much MSNBC and the unions scream.
Not impressed....
Mircea