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.
Yeah, I think we should do away with it right now.
That way all the money I paid into both can vanish. So when I get to retirement I lose that money and my health care (since no private insurer would cover me, and I could not pay them anyway with all my premiums vaporized). I would certainly love to take care of my relatives that all paid into it for years, and now they got a big middle finger when they tried to get it back.
/sarcasm
I am always amazed at what awful ideas some people come up with.
the budget is 3.7 trillion...our revenue (thats from ALL sources) is 2.1 trillion...thats a budget deficit of 1.6 trillion
IF you were to tax the 'rich' at 100% you would only increase the revenue by 800 billion (and that's at 100%)...so you would still be short by800 billion
if you cut the defense budget to zero( from its current 670 billion)..you would still be short
the budget is 3.7 trillion...our revenue (thats from ALL sources) is 2.1 trillion...thats a budget deficit of 1.6 trillion
IF you were to tax the 'rich' at 100% you would only increase the revenue by 800 billion (and that's at 100%)...so you would still be short by800 billion
if you cut the defense budget to zero( from its current 670 billion)..you would still be short
our problem is the SPENDING on social programs
CD posters can decide whom to believe.
The New York Times using these two guys
The starting point for our calculation is work done by Alan Auerbach and William Gale, two economists who are experts on the federal budget. Mr. Auerbach and Mr. Gale have written two recent papers that review what they call “the dismal prospects for the federal budget.” As an extension of that work, they built a spreadsheet for The Times that analyzed the savings that the government would need to achieve each year starting in 2015 to keep the deficit at 3 percent of gross domestic product. That’s the level that many economists consider sustainable for the deficit, because one year’s normal economic growth can pay off the previous year’s budget shortfall.
Or a muffler mechanic, living pay check to pay check, on Long Island who takes right wing propaganda fed to him has the gospel truth, and regurgitates on the CD forums.
Great, so take all the vast wealth of your savings and donate them to the USA treasury, because there is nothing here to pay for the way it was anymore.
Both programs should have the age of eligibility gradually raised. For Medicare, seniors should pay slightly more for co-pays and premiums. Those small tweaks now will greatly improve the finances of those two important and popular programs.
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.
