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.
Both programs were not optional for most of the population. Adjustments may be needed, but the participants definitely paid for these programs.
Each decade or so paid into the program, then was paid for by the next decade of workers. So who paid for what becomes a little slippery. But only workers who paid in at the highest annual limits and then collected a year or two of benefits carried themselves.
The rich already pay way more than their fair share of taxes and that will continue with Trump's new tax policy. Military spending is less than half of what it was 50 years ago as a percentage of GDP. Which useless war do you want to stop funding?
Let me know when you want to talk about the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who are able-bodied, do not work, and continue to rely on the government (read: taxpayers).
The top tax rate in the 1950's was 91%. Very few people paid that top percentage so it would be just fine if the 1% paid that today. 1 average job would provide a middle class life for a family of 4.
People are motivated to work to make money. If you want all those able bodied people back in the workforce there has to be jobs available that give people a middle class lifestyle. Want them to work even harder? Create jobs with a potential for advancement. Jobs that do not pay enough for basic existence are just another form of slavery. Working is supposed to raise the worker out of poverty, not keep them there.
Put social programs in the correct perspective. They actually help people who live here. Those are pretty much the only taxes I am happy to pay! I would much rather help people who can't find a decent job or afford healthcare than buy another bomb. Or pay for some Senator's 1K per month car allowance. Or corporate welfare. I have read we pay more in corporate welfare than what we pay for real people. But I can't say for sure that's correct. Sounds right though. I know corporations like Boeing and Walmart pay very little.
Useless wars? Pretty much everything where we have troops on the ground fighting. No ROI. We are getting nothing back for our investment. We spend more on the military than any other country. We could easily roll back spending to the level of China. They are number 2 in spending. Why should we spend more than they do?
Now is the time to get entitlement spending under control.
I find these charts compelling, and fit within the category of "any trend that cannot go on forever, won't."
The first chart shows entitlement spending per year divided by the number of US Citizens. It is the entitlement cost per person. It now stands at $7500 per citizen.
The second chart shows entitlement spending as a percent of GDP. We're now up to 13%.
Our economy is doing well: unemployment numbers are way down, employment numbers are way up, GDP numbers are up, tax receipts are up, business optimism is up, consumer optimism is up... By most economic measures, things are going well.
Except that at the federal level, there appears to be no check on total expenditures.
We have known for decades that the fundamental US problem is promised entitlement spending far beyond what our current tax system can fund. Markets have presumed that the US would fix this problem sooner or later. It's not that hard as a matter of economics. In the interim, investors buy short-term US bonds, with the anticipation that one year hence someone else will lend the federal government money to roll over the debt so that at some time in the future the US will fix the expenditure problem. This strategy works - until it doesn't.
But what's our excuse now? At 4% unemployment, after 8+ years of uninterrupted growth, if we can't sit down now and solve the problem, when will we? Markets have a right to think perhaps the US federal government is so fractured we won't be able to fix this problem in time.
Or, more accurately, markets have a right to worry that next year's markets will have that worry, and get out now.
Spending in and of itself is meaningless, unless you count the revenue associated with a program.
What is it calling "entitlement program"? Medicaid? Social Security? Medicare? SS & Medicare are not entitlement programs, strictly speaking, since the beneficiaries paid for it, and continue to pay monthly for Medicare.
Does it take into account the lift to the economy from the income that such assistance frees up for necessities, like groceries, car repairs, and the like?
Are they including corporate subsidies? Where's the line for that? That line would dwarf the others.
What about the benefits? Shouldn't there be a line for that? X number of people did not die because they got medical treatment? X number of kids will be healthier adults because they got dental care as children and nutritious school lunches?
No, a mere line showing "spending" is the stuff that conservative wet dreams are made of, as long as they don't take into account the revenue, help to the economy, the benefit to people, or corporate subsidies.
I hate Medicaid! I hate SSI! I hate SNAP! I hate subsidized housing!
oops, I just got laid off. I don't have enough money to stay afloat. Quietly, I'll apply for Medicaid, SNAP, maybe I can go on SSI, since I don't think I"m gonna get another job. I just won't tell anyone.
But publicly, I'll continue to shout that I hate all those social welfare programs!
It's sort of like the person who is anti-abortion, until they or their close relative/girlfriend, whatever, needs one. THEN they're okay with it.
The only justified social welfare program is the one that I need, and only when I need it.
I'm not against abortion. I'm not against social welfare programs.
But all these things have to be "right sized." In the long run, we can't spend more money than we have.
I am for gradually raising the Social Security eligibility age, even though it might cost me money. I am for charging a reasonable fee for high income people to participate in Medicare. I think Medicaid expansion, and Obamacare as it is currently configured, may have been a mistake.
We need to treat other people's money as if it were our own.
Now is the time to get entitlement spending under control.
I find these charts compelling, and fit within the category of "any trend that cannot go on forever, won't."
These charts always make things look worse than they are. Projections show that costs for Social Security and Medicare will begin to decline after 2030 or so, when most of the Baby Boomers will have passed away. Dead men don't get checks. Of course this is conveniently left out of any discussion of entitlements because it doesn't fit the political agenda they are trying to push.
These charts always make things look worse than they are. Projections show that costs for Social Security and Medicare will begin to decline after 2030 or so, when most of the Baby Boomers will have passed away. Dead men don't get checks. Of course this is conveniently left out of any discussion of entitlements because it doesn't fit the political agenda they are trying to push.
Most of the Baby Boomers will not have passed away in 2030. Those born in 1950 would have 80 years in 2030, while those born in 1960 would only have 70 years.
Table IV.B3 shows a constant increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving benefits under all assumptions for the duration of the program.
Table Table VI.G2 shows only a 1.4% decline in costs in 2045 under the Intermediate Cost Assumption, while the High Cost Assumption shows no decline in costs for the duration of the existence of Social Security.
Oh, yes, the old "entitlements!" B.S. charts. Is anyone honestly dumb enough to take this crap seriously? We've been at war for 17 years straight and just cut corporate taxes in half, but sure, it's the guy collecting Social Security that's screwing the budget up.
Now is the time to get entitlement spending under control.
I find these charts compelling, and fit within the category of "any trend that cannot go on forever, won't."
The first chart shows entitlement spending per year divided by the number of US Citizens. It is the entitlement cost per person. It now stands at $7500 per citizen.
The second chart shows entitlement spending as a percent of GDP. We're now up to 13%.
Our economy is doing well: unemployment numbers are way down, employment numbers are way up, GDP numbers are up, tax receipts are up, business optimism is up, consumer optimism is up... By most economic measures, things are going well.
Except that at the federal level, there appears to be no check on total expenditures.
We have known for decades that the fundamental US problem is promised entitlement spending far beyond what our current tax system can fund. Markets have presumed that the US would fix this problem sooner or later. It's not that hard as a matter of economics. In the interim, investors buy short-term US bonds, with the anticipation that one year hence someone else will lend the federal government money to roll over the debt so that at some time in the future the US will fix the expenditure problem. This strategy works - until it doesn't.
But what's our excuse now? At 4% unemployment, after 8+ years of uninterrupted growth, if we can't sit down now and solve the problem, when will we? Markets have a right to think perhaps the US federal government is so fractured we won't be able to fix this problem in time.
Or, more accurately, markets have a right to worry that next year's markets will have that worry, and get out now.
What is included in those graphs. Are they including SS as an entitlement? If so, there is no way to limit the growth in "entitlement" spending, because retiring boomers are going to suck $2.6 trillion out of the federal budget in the next 20 years. That used to be a concern, before the Republicans started running trillion dollar deficits. Now, SS is not as scary a prospect as it used to be. They can just sell more bonds to pay for it.
It is interesting how they detached government spending from tax revenues. Taxpayers are no longer funding the government. We can all relax, because it's not our money.
The rich already pay way more than their fair share of taxes and that will continue with Trump's new tax policy. Military spending is less than half of what it was 50 years ago as a percentage of GDP. Which useless war do you want to stop funding?
Let me know when you want to talk about the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who are able-bodied, do not work, and continue to rely on the government (read: taxpayers).
All the money comes from the rich. They pay most of the taxes because everybody else is broke, and the fund the deficit because they have to have somewhere to put their money.
If you think defense spending goes to the military, you haven't been paying attention. Defense spending goes to contractors, not the military.
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.
