SS dies in 2017??!

[Ddrak]

When will free marketers like Flunkie and Embar finally get the idea that Social Security was never supposed to be an investment? That's the EXACT reason it's in Treasury bills.

But the government investing in T-Bills, or using them as an untouchable "fund" or whatever you want to call SS isn't a sensible situation. They are just paying themselves.

If you want a secure and untouchable fund then you stockpile cash somewhere.
If you want a fund that is moderately secure which the government can eat a small loss now and then on then you go with mutual funds, or have the SS employ a set of fund managers that they offer performance related bonuses to which publishing *exactly* what they are doing for the world to see (ie open government).
If you want to create a fake fund while really just making another pension plan then you invest in a negotiable instrument that you provide yourself. The government buying T-Bills is like someone writing themselves a check and calling it "security".

Whatever the SS system is supposed to be, the core tenet of putting the fund in T-Bills is broken.

Dd

[Lurker]

And Lurker.. your statement is dishonest. I've been a consistant fiscal conservative, and have pulled the Republicans into the woodshed because they spend just like Democrats.

And why is your (and Partha's) knee-jerk reaction to all budget and spending questions parrot crry of RAISE TAXES! RAISE TAXES! RAISE TAXES!?

Two points. Cutting taxes in the face of massive deficits is not what I consider to be 'fiscally conservative', and speaking out against the Bush tax cuts is hardly a cry to 'RAISE TAXES', it's a plea to return to a fiscally responsible tax base so the Government can function.

How about the two of you come up with 10 Federal programs that you'd eliminate? Not policy or practice.. but actual programs.

Amazing. We've posed this very question to you many times and you always vanish from the discussion instead of answering. Since you are the one that is advocating cuts to federal revenue that we can't afford, why don't you tell us what federal spending you want to cut. Which programs are we going to eliminate so we can afford your wars and tax cuts?

[Embar Angylwrath]

So says you.... more revisionist history. Tell you what... I'll match you program by program. And since you think I've run away from this before, I'll start. You foloow.

My first department for elimination is the IRS. What's yours?

[Lurker]

Wow, Embar, you are really deranged. I'll repeat...

You are the one advocating cuts to federal revenue that we can't afford. What programs do you want to eliminate so we can afford your wars and tax cuts? The deficit is in the hundreds of billions per year, and that's not counting the Iraq war. Even if eliminating the IRS wouldn't criple the Governments ability to collect funds, what would it save exactly? 10 billion a year?

Is this the best a 'fiscal conservative' can come up with? Where are you getting the other 400+ billion a year in savings? How are you going to begin to pay off the national debt?

Please. You like whining about taxes and lefties and liberals, so lets hear your real world, fiscally conservative solutions.

[Kulaf]

Point of order.....since the country has not imploded.....clearly we CAN afford them. The question is not can we....but should we. So let's just drop the melodrama about "your" this and "your" that, unless you want Social Security dropped in "your" lap.

It's tough to have a debate of fiscal conservatism with someone who is supporting candidates for president that want to institute a national healthcare system that would increase government spending to heights GWB could only dream of. Sorry but I find it hard to take your war umbrage seriously.

[Ddrak]

While we're on points of order, national health care isn't really an opposite to fiscal conservatism, in fact a well run system could easily be managed in a fiscally conservative manner, probably much better than the current private system in the US.

Dd

[Partha]

Indeed, in at least the case of the auto industry, national health care would improve profits tremendously simply by taking that cost off of the companies' ledgers. Oh well, it's not the first time the American people have been hoodwinked into voting against their own interests, and it's far from the last.

[Kulaf]

How is shifting the cost from a direct cost to a tax burden going to help the auto industry? Or is the funding for this national healthcare system going to fly out of your ass?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Wow, Embar, you are really deranged. I'll repeat...

You are the one advocating cuts to federal revenue that we can't afford. What programs do you want to eliminate so we can afford your wars and tax cuts? The deficit is in the hundreds of billions per year, and that's not counting the Iraq war. Even if eliminating the IRS wouldn't criple the Governments ability to collect funds, what would it save exactly? 10 billion a year?

Is this the best a 'fiscal conservative' can come up with? Where are you getting the other 400+ billion a year in savings? How are you going to begin to pay off the national debt?

Please. You like whining about taxes and lefties and liberals, so lets hear your real world, fiscally conservative solutions.

Nice dodge. Now.. I've given you a program I would cut. Care to offer one of your own?

[Klast Brell]

How is shifting the cost from a direct cost to a tax burden going to help the auto industry? Or is the funding for this national healthcare system going to fly out of your ass?

So what is your explanation for why the Japan is kicking Detroit's ass?

[Embar Angylwrath]

How is shifting the cost from a direct cost to a tax burden going to help the auto industry? Or is the funding for this national healthcare system going to fly out of your ass?

So what is your explanation for why the Japan is kicking Detroit's ass?

Unions

[Flunkie]

How is shifting the cost from a direct cost to a tax burden going to help the auto industry? Or is the funding for this national healthcare system going to fly out of your ass?

So what is your explanation for why the Japan is kicking Detroit's ass?

American automakers are too sluggish to react to the market conditions and they have a $3000-$4000 chunk of overhead on every car before it's produced to pay for pensions and such. The Jananise make gas guzzlers too, but they know how to be nimble when it comes to changing market conditions. Toyota is particulary good at changing.

[Lurker]

Nice dodge. Now.. I've given you a program I would cut. Care to offer one of your own?

I'm not the one dodging, Embar, because I'm not the one who made the proposal.

You want to reduce federal revenue, so what spending are you going to cut so we can afford that. Show us how how well thought out and grounded in reality your fiscally conservative views are. Surely you can come up with something more concrete than 'entitlement programs' or 'the IRS'. Where are the hundreds of billions going to come from?

Otherwise, you're just another crank pushing completely unrealistic ideas... like someone advocating Communism after all real world evidence has shown it doesn't work. 'Fiscally conservative'. What a joke.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nice dodge. Now.. I've given you a program I would cut. Care to offer one of your own?

I'm not the one dodging, Embar, because I'm not the one who made the proposal.

You want to reduce federal revenue, so what spending are you going to cut so we can afford that. Show us how how well thought out and grounded in reality your fiscally conservative views are. Surely you can come up with something more concrete than 'entitlement programs' or 'the IRS'. Where are the hundreds of billions going to come from?

Otherwise, you're just another crank pushing completely unrealistic ideas... like someone advocating Communism after all real world evidence has shown it doesn't work. 'Fiscally conservative'. What a joke.

Its a dodge. You indict me for not putting up programs for the ax, then skitter away when you are asked to do the same. I don't expect all that much from you and Partha when it comes to actual solutions.. you guys just like to complain. That's just you. Bitch and moan, but little thought to fixing things.

[Kulaf]

How is shifting the cost from a direct cost to a tax burden going to help the auto industry? Or is the funding for this national healthcare system going to fly out of your ass?

So what is your explanation for why the Japan is kicking Detroit's ass?

Well for one......they are building better cars. Same thing happened back in the late 70's early 80's. American automakers got fat and lazy and a more nimble responsive Japan took advantage. America rebounded but learned nothing from the experience and are once again bulding crappy cars that get asstacular gas mileage.

The other part is poor negotiations with the unions. Unions have a way of foregoing wage hikes and securing instead pension and healthcare hikes. Well, too much short term thinking on the part of GMC came back to bite them in the ass.

And the final part is cartel like behavior in Japan that wouldn't be tollerated in this country. Now if you want to allow Ford/GMC/Chrysler to interoperate like Mitsubishi/Toyota/et al do.......that is another subject entirely.

[Kulaf]

You want to reduce federal revenue, so what spending are you going to cut so we can afford that. Show us how how well thought out and grounded in reality your fiscally conservative views are. Surely you can come up with something more concrete than 'entitlement programs' or 'the IRS'. Where are the hundreds of billions going to come from?

Otherwise, you're just another crank pushing completely unrealistic ideas... like someone advocating Communism after all real world evidence has shown it doesn't work. 'Fiscally conservative'. What a joke.

More short sighted thinking. You can grow the tax base and take in more money without increasing taxes. At the risk of being tagged a supporter of "corporate welfare" we need to modernize our economy by providing incentives for companies seeking to advance technology. We need to modernize our interstate highway system and bridges/rail.

Here are some things I would do:

1 - Repeal the Americans with disabilities act.
2 - Make an across the board cut in military spending in any "unmaned" programs.
3 - Repeal any regulations benefiting companies who move their production facilities overseas and end all tax incentives for companies who operate domestically but HQ on foreign soil to avoid taxes.
4 - End imigration programs that provide incentives to foreign workers. Coming to America should be reward enough. No fast tracking certain professions.
5 - Reevaluate all foreign aid and reduce/cut across the board. Buying the welfare of other contries doesn't work.....you need to earn it through actions.
6 - Totally revamp the federal government and eliminate many federal agencies like ATF that have outlived their usefulness. Offer buyouts to whatever percentage of government workers reflect the new need under the new government.

I could come up with a lot more but that will do for now.

[Lurker]

Its a dodge. You indict me for not putting up programs for the ax, then skitter away when you are asked to do the same. I don't expect all that much from you and Partha when it comes to actual solutions.. you guys just like to complain. That's just you. Bitch and moan, but little thought to fixing things.

Ha!!! This might be the best example of projection I've ever witnessed. Seriously.

You complain constantly, bitching and moaning about taxes and government spending, and then when pressed you can't come up with any realistic path to get where you say we need to go (end entitlements! abolish the IRS!)... and then you accuse me of giving 'little thought'?

And you are still refusing to answer the question. Not answering by accusing me of not answering doesn't change that fact.

You, sir, are a crank.

=====

More short sighted thinking. You can grow the tax base and take in more money without increasing taxes.

I agree. But you can't increase revenue with large scale across the board tax cuts and we can't cut enough spending to make up our current deficits. It's going to take a mix of spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

[Kulaf]

More short sighted thinking. You can grow the tax base and take in more money without increasing taxes.

I agree. But you can't increase revenue with large scale across the board tax cuts and we can't cut enough spending to make up our current deficits. It's going to take a mix of spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

The problem here is......your statements are not backed up by facts. The facts are that since the tax cuts went in in 2003 that federal revenues have increased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi ... nted=print
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116 ... venues.pdf

Therefore the solution is not to repeal what is working......but reduce what spending we can and ride out this temporary "glitch" in expenditures (Iraq).

To do what you are suggesting right now could very well knock the wheels off the cart.

[Lurker]

The facts are that since the tax cuts went in in 2003 that federal revenues have increased
...
Therefore the solution is not to repeal what is working

I have no desire to rehash old arguments, but I can't let this slide. Revenues have not increased so much that their was no lost revenue from the tax cuts. Tax cuts have a cost, and while the cost isn't 100% of the cut, across the board cuts like the ones Bush and the Republicans passed do not pay for themselves.

I'd also disagree that Bush's policies are 'working'. Corporate income tax revenues spiked while individual and other revenues were stagnant. In other words, corporate profits were high and wages were stagnant. Also, that was from 2003 - 2006. I doubt things could still be considered to be 'working' now.

To do what you are suggesting right now could very well knock the wheels off the cart.

That's nothing but hyperbole. Bush's own numbers show the economic stimulus from his income tax cuts is negiligible. Allowing his cuts to expire isn't going slow the economy.

[Partha]

Lurker, you meanie. Eliminating that tax will prevent Paris Hilton from buying a $40,000 purse!