Impossible For 109 Million Workers To Support 87 Million People (Iraq, cost, economy)

[A Common Anomaly]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Taxing the rich is the Dem plan. Your proposals is not what DC is trying to implement here.
Nice ideology but reality is this administration thinks taxing the rich will get rid of our fiscal problems.

Who ever said I was arguing for a party? I was talking about solutions, but however solutions will get shrugged aside and deemed meaningless since I don't belong to party.

How about you go **** yourself and come back when you talk about these problems without cheerleading for a party.

Come back when you want to talk solutions rather than party ideologies.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

You are right there - fraud is expensive to detect and prosecute.

No, it isn't. I used to investigate frauds as a detective sergeant and a private investigator.

Not all fraud is the same, and the various types of welfare, insurance and medical frauds do not eve rise to the level of complexity as so-called "white-collar" crimes.

Originally Posted by Ringo1

I'm going to agree that there are going to have to be cuts. I just don't know where or how.

You got that right.

What's the first thing you should do?

Stop playing their game.

Social Security and Medicare are not part of the budget -- the General Fund.

The Democrat LBJ put Social Security and Medicare in the General Fund in 1968. Reagan took it out in 1983 as part of the recommendations from the Greenspan Commission appointed by Reagan to study the problems of Social Security and Medicare. Republicans Gramm-Rudman-Hollings split the Trust Funds out of the General Fund, made Social Security immune to budget restrictions, but also wisely insisted that all Trust Funds (OASI, OADI, HI and Medicare Part B) be included in the total debt for purposes of monitoring the debt ceiling.

Since Social Security and Medicare are not part of the General Fund, why discuss them when the issue of budget deficits and budgets comes up?

You're a fool to play the game they would have you play.

Gaming....

Mircea

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Why do you think I have been a strong advocate of rehiring the public workers who were laid off due to the recession (i.e. school teachers, policemen, emergency responders, air traffic controllers, etc).

Why do I think?

I think it's because you have an Economic IQ of ZERO.

Recessions are caused by gross inefficiency. Many (but not all) government employees regardless of the level of government are causes of inefficiency ---meaning they waste money.

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Why do you think that I am a big advocate for green energy? It supplies a good amount of middle skilled jobs, plus providing other benefits.

Again, because you're ignorant and ill-informed.

For each green job created, you lose 2.0-2.5 jobs, and then you eventually lose the green job so your net job loss is 3.0-3.5 jobs.

Ask Spain.

If you went to Spain right now and said, "I can solve your problems...all you need is green jobs" the Spanish army would have to escort you out of the country post haste, before the other 47 Million Spaniards lynched you.

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Why do you think I want to strengthen SS, in which working people pay into.

Why? Because you don't understand the issues surrounding Social Security. You can frame it like this....

Joe Retiree collects $1,200 in benefits every month or $14,400 per year and he gets $13,000 in Medicare benefits every year.

Betty and Bruce are working their asses off each earning $45,000 year.

Let's see......

Betty pays $3,442.50 annually in FICA/HI taxes....
Bruce pays $3,442.50 annually in FICA/HI taxes...
together they pay $6,885.00 annually....
Betty is self-employed so she kicks in another $3,442.50...
Bruce punches a time clock so his employer puts up another $3,442.50....
In total, it is comes to $13,770 each year....
except Joe costs $27,400 annually.

$13,770 does not equal $27,400 so you're $13,630 short.

Where is that $13,630 going to come from?

So, do you want to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya in hopes that the money just pops up somewhere?

In order for the Silent Generation to have Social Security, they had to suffer a 520% FICA tax rate increase.

And still.....it wasn't enough.

So the Boomers got slapped with a 71% FICA tax rate increase.

And still....it wasn't enough.

If you want Generations X and Y to have Social Security, then you will increase the FICA tax rate by 250% or you will not have it, or if you do have it, it will only pay 1/4th to 1/3rd of the benefits it pays now.

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Despite right wing rhetoric of a large and out of control government, we have been practicing austerity measures. Laying off ~600,000 public workers is not going to help the economy fill the lack of demand left by the housing bubble.

That is not Austerityâ„¢. Sorry. You should ask someone to pray for you, because if you think that is Austerityâ„¢, I don't know what you're going to when real Austerityâ„¢ comes to town.

Also, you have it all wrong.

These are average wages/salaries per tax return...

1995 $38,259..... 0.88%
1996 $38,503..... 0.64%
1997 $39,600..... 2.85%
1998 $41,073..... 3.72%
1999 $42,027..... 2.32%
2000 $43,066..... 2.47%
2001 $42,609..... -1.06%
2002 $41,952..... -1.54%
2003 $41,718..... -0.56%
2004 $42,425..... 1.70%
2005 $42,296..... -0.31%
2006 $42,206..... -0.21%
2007 $42,430..... 0.53%
2008 $41,773..... -1.55%
2009 $41,251......-1.25%
2010 $41,520.......0.65%

What do you see? Flat wages. Why? Because of the rise of BRIC; because BRIC is doing what you refused to do, which is develop States and engage in nation-building; because you cannot compete globally due to the existence of extreme wage disparities between the 1% -- Americans and the 99% -- the rest of the world.

You understand that this never ends, right? At least not in your life-time.

You all keep screaming China-Slave Wages!, when you ought to be keeping silent.....because when China is done, next comes Central Asia.......and you'll want to scream Central Asia-Slave Wages!, but you shouldn't, because you should wait until about 2030-2040 so you can scream Africa-Slave Wages!

You see, Fat Union Fred gets paid $30/hour to run a MAZAK machine and make 12 parts an hour, but by 2030-2040 or so, Fat Union Fred will only be getting about $20/hour and he's going to have to compete against Mbutu getting paid $1.35/hour to run his MAZAK machine making 12 parts an hour.

Tell me again why the 7 Billion people on Earth would pay more money to buy something American made by Fat Union Fred, when they can buy the same quality product for less from Mbutu?

Anyway, the whole point is that the so-called housing bubble did not cause your problems, rather the housing bubble was the result of your problems and your problems are that you have surplus labor due to the fact that you cannot compete globally.

The simple fact of the matter is that you have been bleeding jobs and wages since the end of Millennium Fever and Y2K. And the reason you're losing jobs is because you cannot compete globally. And you cannot compete globally because your wages are too high.

You will never create sufficient domestic demand to absorb those jobs you lost.

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Bill O'Reilly and right wingers can complain all they want about the private sector supporting public sectors workers, but the data is in. The economy can handle it, and even more.

This ain't over by a long-shot.

You already went over the Fiscal Cliff. Years ago. Like about 1998. You just haven't hit ground yet, but you will.

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

We need more spending right now on employment and infrastructure. Not only will a robust and thriving economy be good for everyone, it would also be best for our debt. However, we continue in the perverse groove of austerity measures and anemic growth and then ***** about spending when austerity doesn't work.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The reason I'm critical of the 2% FICA tax cut is because sooner or later it has to end, and not only that, you must raise the FICA tax rate.

When that happens, your economy will take an hit and you'll be right back where you started.

Sad, but true....

Mircea

[Ringo1]

Well, let me rephrase that - investigating fraud may not cost a lot but PROSECUTING fraud sure does. It takes years to bring down one physician currently engaging in Medicare/Medicaid fraud.'

Unless - we are just so afraid to actually prosecute that we gather more evidence and spend more time than is needed.

I've spent some time on the investigation end myself. Might vary by state as well, and the legal climate in each state.

It sure doesn't happen as often as I would like to see it - that Medicare/Medicaid/SSI/Insurance claims are actually successfully prosecuted.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by malamute

So why are so many people having children that they cannot afford?

That IS the problem --- in spite of so many contraceptives out there, why are people becoming more irresponsible than ever and having children they cannot afford but expect others to pay for?

You didn't see past generations just popping out babies they could never even feed -- and they didn't have all the contraception then.

You don't know your history if you believe that. If you think illigitimate births are just a modern invention .

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

At min wage these people can't afford healthcare on their own paychecks.
Plenty of articles to back that up why many Walmart workers don't enroll.

And the point of that post was to show the ratio is getting smaller. 1 in 50 vs 1 in 6.
What happens when it gets to 1 in 2 ?
And that was JUST medicaid. Those smaller ratios also exist in the other government programs.

The only way to force compensation changes by the employer is to buy them out and do it yourself.
Then just go all out and propose the government take ownership.

The pay is not shrinking. Min wage has not been cut and is not lower than in the past.
Prices of goods have gone up while pay has stagnated.

Considering medicaid started in 1965, and there probably was not an instat rush to get it the comparison is BS.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Considering medicaid started in 1965, and there probably was not an instat rush to get it the comparison is BS.

Just use logic. We have more people now. If anything that ratio should be bigger, like 1 in 100 or more.
Instead, over time more and more went on medicaid.

For every 6 Americans, 1 is on medicaid.
Since its inception medicaid has expanded.
What do we do when it's for every 2 Americans 1 is on medicaid ?
Or SS, or medicare or any of the other 83 government programs that subsidize people's lives?

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Iamme73

Our only entitlement programs that are growing out of control are medicare and medicaid, and again just cutting those programs doesn't solve the problem of out of control healthcare costs, it just initially shifts those costs. It is not a solution.

The only solution is to get healthcare costs under control.

We get universal healthcare for all, which is a proven way to lower healthcare costs.

We bargain for lower prescription drug costs we pay doctors and hospitals less, we attempt to change the incentives for doctors and hospitals from providing treatment to prevention.

And at the margins we might cut certain benefits as long as those cuts aren't going to just boomerang back unto the government and American families and not save us any money.

Don't forget our bloated military budget.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Just use logic. We have more people now. If anything that ratio should be bigger, like 1 in 100 or more.
Instead, over time more and more went on medicaid.

For every 6 Americans, 1 is on medicaid.
Since its inception medicaid has expanded.
What do we do when it's for every 2 Americans 1 is on medicaid ?
Or SS, or medicare or any of the other 83 government programs that subsidize people's lives?

You obviously are the one lacking logic on this one. The program was new in 1965, so chances are vast portions of people applying had yet to be approved, the standards might have been stricter to get it, and many people probably were ignorant it even existed right away. Not to mention many states probably did not implement it instantly. For a better estimation you would need to look at numbers further down the line from say 1975. Obviously any new program the first year is not going to accurately represent how much it will be used.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Don't forget our bloated military budget.

The military is not an entitlement program.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The military is not an entitlement program.

It is when we spend far more than is needed for the defense of our shores.