• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2018 - the year the GOP came for our entitlements

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
glenn1 said:
You say it’s political suicide and yet we’re in a thread talking about doing it anyway. I guess you care more about hurting the rich than steps to ensure SS ownership like I suggested.
Click to expand...

Gawd. "Hurting" the Rich? Anything I suggest won't hurt their lifestyles- just their balance sheets.
 
Mai72 said:
I agree.

Our wages have been stagant for years and I doubt it's going to change anytime soon. Add on top the cost of living and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to get ahead. Oh, and I forgot the threat of automation. The posssibility that automation may wipe out tens on thousands of jobs that people rely on is scary. This is why we need to think differently.

.....

Why not have 3-4 sources of income today. So, when you retire SS is the last thing you need. Many of the wealthy have 3 or more streams of income, why can't the average person?
Click to expand...

Uh....yeah. Sure thing.
 
Engineer said:
That's rich...Buwhahahahahaha!

GOP cuts taxes for rich and spends like drunken sailors buying cheap whores.

Oh, and fuck the private SS and Medicare bullshit. Non of this defined contribution plan shit.

Put CONgress and the President on SS and Medicare instead of their cushy pensions and lifetime medical care and I guarantee they will fix it long term with NO cuts.
Click to expand...

Expenditures have gone up significantly under the last two decades. Even if you want to excuse away Obama's spending as justified to "fight the Great Recession" the overall spend on entitlements plus net interest expense is going to be greater than the long term government revenues of ~20% of GDP. No matter what you think about particular types of spending (social welfare vs. defense, etc) hopefully everyone can agree this level of growth isn't sustainable. And yes, entitlements will need to be examined somewhat although I'd agree that far more reductions can come from the national defense side and some other discretionary spending.

srfedspendingnumbers2012p21chart2.jpg


SR-budget-book-2015-chart-4-1024x707.png


U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945–2015.jpg
 
Demographics is destiny. Federal spending per household will continue to increase until the boomers die off or we decide to do something about healthcare spending.
 
It gets me again and again. Obama turned the R shitshow economic disaster around and just barely recovered R is at again STEALING the loot, disaster incoming and guess who is going to pick up the pieces. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
 
glenn1 said:
Expenditures have gone up significantly under the last two decades. Even if you want to excuse away Obama's spending as justified to "fight the Great Recession" the overall spend on entitlements plus net interest expense is going to be greater than the long term government revenues of ~20% of GDP. No matter what you think about particular types of spending (social welfare vs. defense, etc) hopefully everyone can agree this level of growth isn't sustainable. And yes, entitlements will need to be examined somewhat although I'd agree that far more reductions can come from the national defense side and some other discretionary spending.

srfedspendingnumbers2012p21chart2.jpg


SR-budget-book-2015-chart-4-1024x707.png


U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945–2015.jpg
Click to expand...


I don't give a shit. Raise taxes on the rich to pay for it at this point. You can reply again and I'll give you the same answer. I've paid in for 30 years and am not willing to take a cut, period. Fuck anyone suggesting otherwise. We just gave a cut of 1.5 trillion to mostly the rich and will get a giant 1 trillion hole blown in the debt because of it. We don't care about deficits for that but suddenly care about this? The cuts can come from military (starting now would be fine - the sooner we start, but better off we'll be long term). Fuck CONgress and they can borrow to pay for this as well.

The boomers are a big reason for this mess, including the ones currently running CONgress right now. They are never willing to take a cut themselves but always willing for the next generation to take a cut while still paying themselves the full promised benefits. Piss on them (CONgress)
 
Last edited:
glenn1 said:
Expenditures have gone up significantly under the last two decades. Even if you want to excuse away Obama's spending as justified to "fight the Great Recession" the overall spend on entitlements plus net interest expense is going to be greater than the long term government revenues of ~20% of GDP. No matter what you think about particular types of spending (social welfare vs. defense, etc) hopefully everyone can agree this level of growth isn't sustainable. And yes, entitlements will need to be examined somewhat although I'd agree that far more reductions can come from the national defense side and some other discretionary spending.

srfedspendingnumbers2012p21chart2.jpg


SR-budget-book-2015-chart-4-1024x707.png


U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945–2015.jpg
Click to expand...

So we have to make a choice between the welfare of ordinary Americans & the greed of the financial elite. Borrowing more of their money only to give it back to them as tax cuts sure as hell isn't the answer. It's completely insane, other than for the financial elite.

We have ignored changes in national income distribution for far too long. Since 1980 or so, ~14% of national income has shifted to the top 10%. The lion's share of that went to the top .1%. Given that the SS cutoff is at the top 10%, that income shifted out of range of SS taxation. When 1000 guys make $130K/yr apiece, it's all subject to SS taxes. When one guy makes $130M, he only puts in 1/1000 as much as the other 1000 guys. And that's exactly what's happening to us.

Table 5-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

As a nation, we were a lot better at using capitalism to serve the general welfare during the New Deal pre Reagan pre trickle down era. Many of the mechanisms to do that are simply no longer available so we need to accomplish the same thing in different ways. Republicans are the antithesis of that, of course, because what it amounts to is demanding more from America's wealthiest, not less.

Think about it a bit. I didn't notice rich people having problems being rich back in 1980 when their share of national income was much smaller. Did you? Of course not.

We've simply indulged greed at the top for far too long & you seem to think that we should continue.
 
Jhhnn said:
Oh, please. Ending those programs would be political suicide. Even the current crop of rabid Repubs know that. But that won't stop them from trying to run the old shell game on the public in order to cut benefits.

SS was a giant cash cow for decades, creating the trust balance of today. It enabled tax policy that greatly favored the wealthy for 30 years. That's obvious in the way national income share has shifted to the tippy top. We shouldn't be cutting their taxes but rather raising them so that we can honor the good faith efforts of everyday Americans.
Click to expand...

Either I'm cynical or you're naive. It's only political suicide if it hurts the donors and lobbyists, not the general population.
 
glenn1 said:
Expenditures have gone up significantly under the last two decades. Even if you want to excuse away Obama's spending as justified to "fight the Great Recession" the overall spend on entitlements plus net interest expense is going to be greater than the long term government revenues of ~20% of GDP. No matter what you think about particular types of spending (social welfare vs. defense, etc) hopefully everyone can agree this level of growth isn't sustainable. And yes, entitlements will need to be examined somewhat although I'd agree that far more reductions can come from the national defense side and some other discretionary spending.

srfedspendingnumbers2012p21chart2.jpg


SR-budget-book-2015-chart-4-1024x707.png


U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945–2015.jpg
Click to expand...
Biggest growth is in Medicare, which Republicans banned from negotiating prices on prescription drugs.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Sounds great. Thank Obama for the achievement ............ohh wait.
Click to expand...

It happened-

An additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on earnings and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income (NII) for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000 and couples with incomes exceeding $250,000. The high-income surtaxes are projected to raise $35 billion in 2020. Nearly all families affected by the additional payroll tax and NII tax are in the top five percent of income with most of the burden borne by families in the top one percent of income.
Click to expand...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-changes-did-affordable-care-act-make

It needs to be more, not less.
 
snoopy7548 said:
Either I'm cynical or you're naive. It's only political suicide if it hurts the donors and lobbyists, not the general population.
Click to expand...

Not so sure I agree with that. If memory serves, Bush and the GOP congress at the time started pushing private SS accounts and a blue wave hit them during the next election. I'm sure other issues were in play here but people are very passionate about their SS / Medicare. Sure, donors want to see those things gutted. They may provide the funding but they can't cast all of the votes (yet).
 
Engineer said:
Not so sure I agree with that. If memory serves, Bush and the GOP congress at the time started pushing private SS accounts and a blue wave hit them during the next election. I'm sure other issues were in play here but people are very passionate about their SS / Medicare. Sure, donors want to see those things gutted. They may provide the funding but they can't cast all of the votes (yet).
Click to expand...

Republicans cutting SS & Medicare is a "make my day" proposition for Dems...
 
imported_tajmahal said:
"10 Truths About America’s Entitlement Programs, Address by R. Bruce Josten Executive Vice President of Government Affairs U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 8:00pm

https://www.uschamber.com/speech/10-truths-about-america’s-entitlement-programs-address-r-bruce-josten-executive-vice

"Truth No. 5: Not a single major entitlement program is projected to be financially solvent 20 years from now."
Click to expand...

lol

It also says under trutch no 5..

The trust fund for the Social Security Disability Insurance program will be exhausted in just three years.

and that article was written in 2013 so... if my math is right... it is going on 2 more years..

Yup.. great article..


Did not check the rest of the article... but i bet it is full of half truths and lies.
 
outriding said:
lol

It also says under trutch no 5..
The trust fund for the Social Security Disability Insurance program will be exhausted in just three years.
and that article was written in 2013 so... if my math is right... it is going on 2 more years..
Yup.. great article..
Did not check the rest of the article... but i bet it is full of half truths and lies.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the arctic is going to be ice-free by 2013 and "children just aren't going to know what snow is anymore"?
 
snoopy7548 said:
Either I'm cynical or you're naive. It's only political suicide if it hurts the donors and lobbyists, not the general population.
Click to expand...

You bring up a very interesting point there.

How odd it is that the donors and lobbyists with the willful cooperation of our politicians created for themselves that particular set of circumstances. More so, how peculiar it is that the general population does not have the will nor the wherewithal to counter this oppressive and very corruptive influence over our politicians when the general population possess the vast majority of votes needed to make those donors and lobbyists a marginal, if not completely ineffective influence on our legislators.
 
glenn1 said:
Supreme Court precedents have already affirmed you have no ownership of or legal right to these payments. Just because they’re commonly referred to as entitlements and the fact you’re forced to pay into them makes no difference.



imvqrp
Click to expand...

ah, decades of GOP agitprop has worked magic on your feeble brain. The GOP has only ever commonly referred to them as entitlements, because they desperately need to Orwell themselves into your piss-informed votes because their actual policies are devastating to free societies everywhere.

They are only "commonly referred" to as entitlements if you are part of the card-carrying army of purposely-uninformed GOP automatons...which is a significant minority in this country

Jesus hopes that your old age doesn't treat you as craven and merciless as you have treated those before you, you selfish son of a fuck.
 
Engineer said:
Not so sure I agree with that. If memory serves, Bush and the GOP congress at the time started pushing private SS accounts and a blue wave hit them during the next election. I'm sure other issues were in play here but people are very passionate about their SS / Medicare. Sure, donors want to see those things gutted. They may provide the funding but they can't cast all of the votes (yet).
Click to expand...

Good point, but see below. The general population needs to get out there and vote in order to make a difference, otherwise the lobbyists and donors get their way.

tweaker2 said:
You bring up a very interesting point there.

How odd it is that the donors and lobbyists with the willful cooperation of our politicians created for themselves that particular set of circumstances. More so, how peculiar it is that the general population does not have the will nor the wherewithal to counter this oppressive and very corruptive influence over our politicians when the general population possess the vast majority of votes needed to make those donors and lobbyists a marginal, if not completely ineffective influence on our legislators.
Click to expand...

I'm staying optimistic for a complete turnover this year. People are incredibly lazy, but I hope this past year has at least opened their eyes to the insanity on display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top