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.
"On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a message to the Congress, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security.The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement."
Big Mistake Number 2 (in my opinion) (FDR - Democrat)
"The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. This change transformed Social Security from a retirement program for workers into a family-based economic security program."
Do you think this should have been a clue?
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."
Mistake Number 3 (in my opinion) (Truman - Democrat)
"...amendments increased benefits for existing beneficiaries for the first time (see The Story of COLAs), and they dramatically increased the value of the program to future beneficiaries. By February 1951 there were more Social Security retirees than welfare pensioners, and by August of that year, the average Social Security retirement benefit exceeded the average old-age assistance grant for the first time."
Mistake Number 4 (in my opinion) (Kennedy - Democrat)
"The decade of the 1960s brought major changes to the Social Security program. Under the Amendments of 1961, the age at which men are first eligible for old-age insurance was lowered to 62, with benefits actuarially reduced (women previously were given this option in 1956). This created an additional workload for the Agency as more beneficiaries entered the rolls. The number of people receiving disability benefits more than doubled from 1961 to 1969, increasing from 742,000 to 1.7 million.
Did I ask to ignore the law? Nope. Quite the opposite actually. I want to ensure the law is enforced. But being an arm chair tiger is not the way to go about it. Bunning should know.
How is he being an armchair tiger as you put it? He's insisting the law be upheld with his actions... there's no armchair quarterbacking going on there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Nothing new there. When you said entitlements, I assumed you had a longer list than just medicare and social security. I guess you don't.
If you go back and re-read my statements...
Quote:
It's not a matter of persuading the public to accept large spending cuts. The fact is that we cannot continue these huge entitlements and remain solvent. We have an over $90 trillion budgetary imbalance with regards to SS and Medicare. What's your suggestion to fix that?
I was OBVIOUSLY referring to SS and Medicare when I said huge entitlements and even followed that up with a statement referring to the budgetary imbalance with regards to SS and Medicare. Do you have reading comprehension difficulty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So, when can we see "conservatives", you'd be voting for, running their election campaign on the premise of getting rid of medicare and social security?
It's darn near impossible to get rid of these entitlements once implemented and you darn well know that so stop trying to pigeon-hole me.
Shame on Krugman. An "expert" on economics who does not even recognize the schools of thought that supports running deficits and creating debt.
Reaganomics included deliberately creating a deficit, as doing so keeps money flowing through domestic markets, and in some cases works better than tax cuts. Both go hand in hand; in the 70s and 80s debt was primarily held by our own government and depository institutions (banks). However, inflationary pressures greatly hampered economic activity and stagflation ensued. When Reagan took office, the national debt was nearing $1 trillion, and the deficit was at $70 billion. Once inflation came under control in late 1982, the economy soared as a result of the deficit without proactive spending by the government. In 1983 there was a spike in new home construction, and for 5 straight quarters the GDP grew by more than 7%. For perspective, during the 1996-2000 Dot Com bubble, the economy only pinged above 7% 4 times over that entire 4 year period.
Another economic school of thought is that a balanced budget causes economic growth. This was put to the test in the late 90s. However, the national debt was still in the $5 trillion range, which kept money flowing through the market. The only difference was in the early 90s we allowed more foreign and international institutions to buy our treasury securities, and thus we exported debt.
In 2001, we had Bush's famous tax cuts, which had the opposite effect of the Reagan tax cuts and deficit. Instead of significant growth, we were coming up short consistently compared to the 80s and 90s periods. Although, destabilization of global oil markets after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq probably had an effect on the results..
Either way, the "starve the beast" concept is BS. The original concept was stimulus through increased capital for investment and tax cuts for private citizens. The idea emerged in the mid to late 70s but ultimately had a negative effect under Carter. There is no "starve the beast" strategy because the Federal Reserve insures the "beast" will never go unfed. Granted, it still would not hurt to restore a balanced budget, but paying down the debt is pointless.
Well, if YOU wish, you can blame LBJ...but I wont. If Obama loses in 2012, and the next guy raises the debt, he is to blame for that extra debt - period.
Can you explain this to me so that I can get it? There is a big debt bubble that is popping. If you cut spending to balance the budget then the economy will contract. The current pay out for un employment is 32% different than the stated unemployment rate. You can read that they are paying out for soemthing like a 15% unemployment rate and claming a 10% rate. Cutting spending = contracting economy. Contrating the economy from here = really bad. I can geranty you that the next president will raise the debt unless he follows my plan. Or one that is functionally equivellent to mine.
No disagreement in these statements above. Do you think it impossible for our government to pay down the debt?
That is a loaded question. Start a new political party funded by contributions from the little person. get them to have a 2/3 majority in the house senet and have the presidency and yes we can get out of this mess. Baring that I think that we will have a dictator in the near future. I can balance the budget in about 2~3 years. easy but you have to step on some very powerful tows to do it.
Shame on Krugman. An "expert" on economics who does not even recognize the schools of thought that supports running deficits and creating debt.
Reaganomics included deliberately creating a deficit, as doing so keeps money flowing through domestic markets, and in some cases works better than tax cuts. Both go hand in hand; in the 70s and 80s debt was primarily held by our own government and depository institutions (banks). However, inflationary pressures greatly hampered economic activity and stagflation ensued. When Reagan took office, the national debt was nearing $1 trillion, and the deficit was at $70 billion. Once inflation came under control in late 1982, the economy soared as a result of the deficit without proactive spending by the government. In 1983 there was a spike in new home construction, and for 5 straight quarters the GDP grew by more than 7%. For perspective, during the 1996-2000 Dot Com bubble, the economy only pinged above 7% 4 times over that entire 4 year period.
Another economic school of thought is that a balanced budget causes economic growth. This was put to the test in the late 90s. However, the national debt was still in the $5 trillion range, which kept money flowing through the market. The only difference was in the early 90s we allowed more foreign and international institutions to buy our treasury securities, and thus we exported debt.
In 2001, we had Bush's famous tax cuts, which had the opposite effect of the Reagan tax cuts and deficit. Instead of significant growth, we were coming up short consistently compared to the 80s and 90s periods. Although, destabilization of global oil markets after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq probably had an effect on the results..
Either way, the "starve the beast" concept is BS. The original concept was stimulus through increased capital for investment and tax cuts for private citizens. The idea emerged in the mid to late 70s but ultimately had a negative effect under Carter. There is no "starve the beast" strategy because the Federal Reserve insures the "beast" will never go unfed. Granted, it still would not hurt to restore a balanced budget, but paying down the debt is pointless.
http://longwavegroup.com/publication...22_Dow1000.pdf Try reading this article We have reached the point in a 60~70 year sycle that we need to pay down the debt. Reagan was at the point that the debt curve went verticle. The choice then was to have a depression as we pay down the debt or to have a debt bubble. Well the debt bubble wun out.
Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.
The only times Republicans try to block government spending is when they are not in control of governemnt. How do citizens continue to believe their rhetoric when their deeds have consistently been the opposite of that rhetoric for many, many years?
Imagine if the Republicans hadn't squandered the Clinton balanced budgets when they had control in 2000-2006. When this Great Recession hit, we'd be in such better position fiscally to reinvigorate this economy.
It's a proven fact as far as I'm concerned. Good luck getting the FreedomWorks Shills who dominate this forum to admit it though.
Did I ask to ignore the law? Nope. Quite the opposite actually. I want to ensure the law is enforced. But being an arm chair tiger is not the way to go about it. Bunning should know.
You are the one whining about paygo being followed..
Good history lesson, but lets consider current affairs...do you feel the Dems in office now are trying to balance the budget? Is that what you are saying?
Not this year's budget, or next year's. But the President has consistently said for years that this is his goal - a balanced budget. Only now, when banks STILL aren't loaning money and so many are unemployed, is not the time. It's a long term goal after the more short term problems are met.
Clearly there are members on both sides who do not care about the deficit. However, in my lifetime, the Democrats have a more consistent record of actually doing something to balance the budget than the Republicans. I DO believe, and the record shows clearly, that the Republicans have intentionally ballooned our debt, despite their rhetoric saying otherwise.
I really can't inside Bunning's mind,..but I can see where the PAYGO hypocrisy on the left starts. Was it such a terrible question to ask how a $10 billion "temporary patch" would be funded without adding to the deficit? PAYGO works for both parties,...all the time,...not just when it's convenient.
No. But it will likely be funded with taxes, as opposed to the old republican mantra... deficit financed.
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.
