Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       07-05-2011, 12:49 PM Reply   
http://www.thetrader.se/wp-content/u...7/USBUDGET.jpg
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       07-05-2011, 12:58 PM Reply   
Doing a little bit of math and this graph:
http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/milit...ution-2010.png
And you can see that if we were to cut military spending so that we only spent twice as much as any other country on earth (china is number 2) We could wipe out the dept in 2.3 years (not counting interest). Figure 3 years to be safe, and we could wipe out the dept and start spending money on ... 470 billion extra per year buys a lot of school supplies, dams, roads, cops whatever.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-05-2011, 1:31 PM Reply   
The fact that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq is a testament to the lunacy of the American people. We could cut healthcare in nearly in half if we were smart enough to realize that it's doable and necessary.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-05-2011, 1:54 PM Reply   
What is "Income Security"?

And, why does Social Security show up on the graph? Thats paid for by the money people paid in the past. So, I don't understand it as a budget item.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-05-2011, 1:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
And you can see that if we were to cut military spending so that we only spent twice as much as any other country on earth (china is number 2) We could wipe out the dept in 2.3 years (not counting interest). Figure 3 years to be safe, and we could wipe out the dept and start spending money on
No, the debt couldn't be paid ever.. it never could. It is literally impossible. Every single dollar that gets inserted in our economy has debt attached.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       07-05-2011, 2:13 PM Reply   
plhorn, you have your math wrong. First, there's a big difference between DEFICIT (the annual net amount that the government spends more than it takes in - about $1trillion + currently) and the DEBT which is the total amount that we owe (the accumulation of all the annual deficits). Second, the graph shows that the current US annual deficit is $1.1 trillion. Even if we completely ELIMINATED the defense budget of $718 billion, we would still have an annual deficit of $382 billion ($1,100 - 718), thereby still adding that much annually to the total debit.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-05-2011, 3:14 PM Reply   
It's kind of hard to eliminate the debt when you are exporting 100's of billions of dollars out of the economy every year.
Old    SamIngram            07-05-2011, 4:07 PM Reply   
Your numbers are way, way off! The $14 trillion that the media talks about is chump change in comparison to the $119.5 trillion that we actually owe...

For some reason some newspapers are just now picking up on the Cato Institute report regarding the $119.5 trillion, but I guess late is better than never...

Kicking the can on entitlement reform

$120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation's debt

Here is the actual Cato Institute report.

Just read the first page if nothing else...


The U.S. government is about to exceed its statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion. But that actually underestimates the size of the fiscal time bomb that this country is facing. If one considers the
unfunded liabilities of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, the true national debt could run as high as $119.5 trillion.

Moreover, to focus solely on debt is to treat a symptom rather than the underlying disease. We face a debt crisis not because taxes are too low but because government is too big. If there is no change to current policies, by 2050 federal government spending will exceed 42 percent of GDP. Adding in state and local spending, government at all levels will consume nearly 60 percent of everything produced in this country. Whether financed through debt or taxes, government that large would be a crushing burden to our economy and our liberties.

Driving this massive increase in the size and cost of government are so-called “entitlement programs,” in particular Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Indeed, by 2050, those three programs alone will consume 18.4 percent of GDP. If one assumes that revenues return to and stay at their traditional 18 percent of GDP, then those three programs alone will consume all federal revenues.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-05-2011, 5:41 PM Reply   
^SS fund was raided by lawmakers and they replaced the money with IOU's. I don't know if you can lay blame solely on one party, but I don't believe it would be ethical to tell someone getting close to retirement that they are SOL, because some Congressman back in the 80's decided SS was a bottomless ATM and they used up all of the funds. If someone pays into SS all of their life, I don't see how it is an "entitlement program" for that person.
Old    SamIngram            07-05-2011, 6:21 PM Reply   
Yes, I agree, Social Security should have never been instituted. Somehow, someone, somewhere thinks that the federal government can manage my retirement money more wisely than me... It was that bastard FDR that raped the Constitution and threatened to stack the Supreme Court with liberal justices in order to enact it in the first place.

A price must be paid for socialism, for it never pays for itself, and always costs more than originally estimated...

I just wonder what will happen to all those people who counted on Social Security being there for them. Some people will propose that we rob the savings of those who were smart enough to save on their own.... socialism is the great equalizer, everyone ends up poor!

And for you Jeremy, I want to let everyone know, that these are not my ideas and I don't claim them to be, I only support and believe in them. You can find all the historical data and ideas at Mises.org
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-05-2011, 6:29 PM Reply   
"bastard FDR"? Typical conservative jibberish. Reagan put this nation into debt more than FDR could ever dream.

Sam, PS, it's not good to support your argument with the link to an Op-ed piece unless said piece is written by what most would consider a bonafide expert.
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       07-05-2011, 9:34 PM Reply   
I stand corrected I must have copied the deficit number down instead of the debt number. Were screwed.
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       07-05-2011, 9:50 PM Reply   
Here's my new improved math... we need to take defense down to china's level, then completely eliminate "income security" whatever that is, cut social security in half and we could wipe out the debt in 58 years... Better teach your kids to speak Chinese.
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 9:49 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"bastard FDR"? Typical conservative jibberish. Reagan put this nation into debt more than FDR could ever dream.

Sam, PS, it's not good to support your argument with the link to an Op-ed piece unless said piece is written by what most would consider a bonafide expert.
Both Op-Ed's were included to show how the media was picking up on the fact about the actual debt...

I think Michael Tanner, a fellow at the Cato Institute, is considered an expert... it's not like the write up doesn't contain anything less than 146 footnotes...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-06-2011, 9:51 AM Reply   
Anyone who thinks that SS is anywhere close to a unfunded $119 trillion liability is a kook, or a liar.
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 10:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Anyone who thinks that SS is anywhere close to a unfunded $119 trillion liability is a kook, or a liar.
To quote from the article,

"The U.S. government is about to exceed its statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion. But that actually underestimates the size of the fiscal time bomb that this country is facing. If one considers the
unfunded liabilities of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, the true national debt could run as high as $119.5 trillion."

The $119 trillion includes everything, not just SS. Did you actually read the article? I doubt it, since everything is backed up in black and white... but go ahead believe what someone else tells you and what you want to hear.
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 10:34 AM Reply   
Here you go...

Read pages 17-21 on Social Security...

Social Security

Because the recession and increased unemployment have reduced payroll tax revenue, Social Security began running a cash-flow deficit this year, paying out more in benefits than it takes in through taxes (see Figure 14).

In theory, of course, Social Security is supposed to continue paying benefits by drawing on the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is supposed to provide sufficient funds
to continue paying full benefits until 2037, after which it will be exhausted.

At that point, by law, Social Security benefits will have to be cut by approximately 22 percent. However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used
to pay benefits. Any Social Security surpluses accumulated to date have been spent, leaving a Trust Fund that consists only of government bonds (IOUs) that will eventually have to be repaid by taxpayers. As the Clinton administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget explained:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. . . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances,
therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.


Social Security is out of money... and has been for a very long time. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a fund that you draw money against, but a bond fund that is borrowed and must be repaid with interest.
Attached Images
  
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-06-2011, 10:47 AM Reply   
See that's the problem. The country spends the SS and then calls it an unfunded liability. I would assert that anyone who thinks that defaulting on SS and the Americans who funded it before faulting on the Chinese might as well be a Communist. Time to raise taxes on everyone who makes money that doesn't pay FICA taxes.
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 11:00 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
See that's the problem. The country spends the SS and then calls it an unfunded liability. I would assert that anyone who thinks that defaulting on SS and the Americans who funded it before faulting on the Chinese might as well be a Communist. Time to raise taxes on everyone who makes money that doesn't pay FICA taxes.
Now we can agree... make those that don't pay FICA pay too...

Although I would much rather phase out Social Security. Pay those that have paid in their due, but end it going forward, just pay on a percentage basis. It is a Ponzi scheme and can not ever work.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-06-2011, 12:05 PM Reply   
The thing is that it could work if there was an effort to make sure that payouts were in line with payins. I will never get out what I put into SS unless I live a heck of a long time. And that's exactly what I'm working on. Knock on wood!
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       07-06-2011, 12:39 PM Reply   
This video says a lot about the problems we face in amarica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2GYK...e_gdata_player
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 1:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
The thing is that it could work if there was an effort to make sure that payouts were in line with payins. I will never get out what I put into SS unless I live a heck of a long time. And that's exactly what I'm working on. Knock on wood!
Why do you advocate for this system? Who is better to control one's earnings and retirement than the person earning and retiring? My needs are different from yours and only I can recognize those differences and adjust for them accordingly! Why do you advocate for the government taking your earned income, taxing it twice and giving it back to you at a later date and then charging you for borrowing against the money they were suppose to save, but spent twice? You could be earning interest off that money and putting it to work as you see fit. Do you really believe that the government can handle your affairs better than you?

I sincerely ask these questions of you. Are you worried about people not planning for themselves and not having basic needs met when they are elderly? What ever happened to The Ant and the Grasshopper? I would also like to refer you to this article: Welfare before the Welfare State.

If I kill someone I am responsible, if I steal from someone I am responsible, if I cheat someone I am responsible... am I not responsible for my own actions and therefore responsible for outcome of those actions? When did my actions become someone else's responsibility? At what point in time and during what event did I lose accountability? How do I opt out and be responsible for myself?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-06-2011, 2:55 PM Reply   
I'm not advocating for the system. I wrote a paper 20 years ago detailing how it was a bad idea, but nobody really gave a crap back then. Now that it in the news all the time about how it's a failed "entitlement everyone is against it. It isn't that people are against SS because it's a bad investment. They are against it because they think the govt will default on them. And that doesn't have to be the case.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       07-06-2011, 3:06 PM Reply   
"Why do you advocate for this system? Who is better to control one's earnings and retirement than the person earning and retiring?"

You don't really think most people in this country are smart and responsible enough and capable to plan for their retirement do you? Most people son't save nearly enough for their retirement already. SS is a way to force people to pay something into a retirement system so they'll be able to support themselves at least to some extent when they retire. If we didn't have SS, we'd end up paying a lot more in welfare as people got too old to work and were broke - unless we got rid of that, too. SS certainly isn't funded or managed properly, which is a shame. In today's real world, I think it's a necessity. The other option is to get rid of all these social programs, welfare included, but that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-06-2011, 3:20 PM Reply   
Brett I can tell you as long as women stay at home and take care of children, and the law gives them the right to divorce their husbands and take everything for any reason including being bored, no retirement savings will ever be safe. I have an ex wife that is currently dirt poor despite getting a nursing degree right before filing for divorce AND getting close to $300K in cash and retirement savings just less than 10 years ago. The lawyers convinced her she would get much more and it could have easily gone that way except for a series of circumstances that fell into place for me.

I got really lucky in my divorce and didn't become an indentured servant (i.e. alimony). We have a legal system that can destroy even people with the best intentions and who are trying to be financially responsible. I agree it's either SS or everyone will pay taxes to take care of old people.
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 3:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw View Post
"Why do you advocate for this system? Who is better to control one's earnings and retirement than the person earning and retiring?"

You don't really think most people in this country are smart and responsible enough and capable to plan for their retirement do you? Most people son't save nearly enough for their retirement already. SS is a way to force people to pay something into a retirement system so they'll be able to support themselves at least to some extent when they retire. If we didn't have SS, we'd end up paying a lot more in welfare as people got too old to work and were broke - unless we got rid of that, too. SS certainly isn't funded or managed properly, which is a shame. In today's real world, I think it's a necessity. The other option is to get rid of all these social programs, welfare included, but that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Please read my post above. The reason why people are not accountable for their actions (and their retirement) is because we have trained them not to be. Please read the article on Welfare Before Welfare...
Old    SamIngram            07-06-2011, 3:27 PM Reply   
But before we had welfare the people took care of themselves...

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:19 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us