It's not that Social Security is in crisis, it's that it eats up a huge chunk of the deficit and my taxes.

Making medicare / medicaid more efficient requires a complete overhaul of our healthcare system to remove all the administrative overhead in providers getting paid. But are you going to chop out the hundreds of billions in cuts needed to bring things back in line?

Look, I posted the budget numbers back when Obama proposed his budget with the huge deficit in here that showed spending spiraling way out of control: budgets that spend 50-70% more than during the Clinton era. Going back to Clinton tax levels will NOT solve this problem, and won't even really come close. You're talking about needing to nearly double revenue to balance this budget. Cutting defense to ZERO won't balance it, it would just cut the deficit in half.

This is absurd.

It happens constantly. First, the amount of money put in to save banks, investment firms, hedge funds, etc is astronomical. More than any form of welfare we currently have in this country.

But it's not just the bailouts that went to our largest industries. We are constantly giving out corporate welfare. Look through all the tax breaks that certain companies receive that others don't. Or relationships/lobbying that causes an unfair playing field. I'm talking about no-bid contracts and such where we vastly overpay for things because of political connections. Just take a look at most construction projects or even the contractors we sent over to Iraq. Or when something like the Medicare bill states we can't negotiate with pharmaceuticals for the prices of drugs. That's welfare, plain and simple.

We give grants to companies so that they can profit off of what they built with our money. Take the telcos. They received billions to build much of our infrastructure for the internet. Oil companies receive grants for researching areas all the time. And when these companies do screw up, do commit crimes, nothing happens. They are truly above the law.

It's casino capitalism. If you want to argue that the middle to upper-middle class have been penalized, I'd probably agree with you. But when you get up to the wealthy, they have signifigantly benefited from our government more so than they deserved.

It has more to do with lobbying in Washington than anything. Changing to a system of high speed rails like the rest of the world means less reliance on oil. Too much money in Washington to lobbying against that and too many sheep willing to believe their rhetoric.

We couldn't disagree more re: "deserved", especially considering that (most of) what you're talking about simply helps tilt the scales back from the tax burden unjustly placed upon them.

The tax burden many of them have is thanks to unjustly earning money they don't deserve. You can't complain about the taxes you pay if you're not earning the money in a fair manner.

We disagree on what's "fair". Truth is, without them we're dead in the water. And exponentially more deserving of help than most of those who've gotten it over the years.

Without unnecessary tax breaks, handouts, no-bid contracts, etc, we're dead in the water? Or maybe we save a lot of money and give business to people who deserve it resulting in better results.

That's funny, given that the last bailout was $700 billion spread over several years, and that's basically just one year of the Social Security budget, let alone Medicare / Medicaid, let alone jobless benefits.

But yeah, I hated that bailout, too. For the same "punishing success" brought up here: failure was rewarded, by taking from the successful.

SS and Medicare are not welfare. They are pensions paid out after being paid into by individuals over the course of decades.

This.

Stop being disingenuous and referring to them as welfare.

SS taxes are basically at break even for 2011 budget year and have run a huge surplus for most of the past 25 years due to the "fix" from the Reagan era. None of the deficit or national debt is the fault of SS.

Now moving forward it is projected to run a deficit, but not a huge one. Even assuming the projected worst case scenario SS will pay out 78% of promised benefits in seventy-five years.

Now Medicare on the other hand is a disaster and nobody has a good answer on how to solve that with a politically viable program.

Not sure about medicare but studies show, on average, what a person pays in for SS does not come close to what is taken out. I don't disagree with SS (hey I'm going to benefit from it) but the reality is this is semi-welfare.

That's why it's also called corporate "welfare" when they get tax breaks and subsidies from the federal govt.

Talk about wasteful spending. China is going to make 16,000 miles of high-speed rail for $300B and Florida was supposed to make 85 miles for $2.4B?

This of course has nothing to do with China being able to pay workers near slave wages, making them work 18 hour days, and not having anywhere near the same safety standards we require out of our transportation system. Oh and that part about artificially devaluing their own currency. Otherwise the comparision works.

And I don't know if that is fair value or not. I know with government and companies involved, I feel safely that the company is getting major value out of the deal. More of that corporate welfare that no one seems to complain about.

Well, Daniels says he's not going to run for president. One by one, the moderates are dropping like flies.. (by moderates, I mean those who have a realistic shot at gaining independents.)

For the Republicans, this must be maddening. They'll still do well locally (the D's have so much more in play on the Senate election then the R's do) , but if they go hard right on the nominee, I think that independents stay away from them in droves (the Democratic advertising would write itself.. "Do you want the Tea Party to control all three legistlative/executive branches of government?") and that would have at least some down-ticket effect.

The two I truly think has the best chance of winning a general against Obama are Huntsman (who can appeal to moderates, since he actually worked with Obama, which is more then 90% of those in the party can claim with a straight face) and Romney.

I don't think either of them can win the nomination however. Romneycare is going to weigh him down like a millstone, too much flip flopping as well, and Huntsman is distrusted by the right of the right wing as too moderate, and the primary schedule means he'll be starting off with the equivalent of a 15 yard penalty in a 100 yard dash.

I don't know too much about Huntsman yet but he is a businessman and does seem to be a straight shooter which I like. It will be Ross Perot-like but hopefully a little more sedate, more professional communications, and without the "Admiral". He is a morman so that will work against him in the bible-belt.

I liked Romney also but specifically because of his orig stance on healthcare (e.g. I support availability of socialized medicine). Now that he seems to be backing away ...

I like Obama. He did away with "democrats are weak on defense" and he pushed through my #1 platform last year (healthcare). He doesn't get all the credit for the economy but at least it didn't tank again on his watch etc.

I can do without Palin for sure and other tea-baggers. I listen to Cain and he annoys me but he is a straight shooter.

As of right now, I think my burning platform is ensuring the health care reform moves on, so by default it will be Obama.

And to further backup the corporate welfare stuff, this is what I'm talking about. This shit goes on all the time.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...federal_a.html

Panerd's reason #12,032 on why he is a libertarian...

Our state highway department just got done with a study about St. Louis traffic. Now I am sure in the grand scheme of things the cost of the study was not breaking the bank but the results will shock you...

-Travel times begin to slow down between 4 and 4:30 p.m.
-The worst time to travel is between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.
-Travel times don't fully improve until after 6 p.m.

Next up a study to determine which months will produce the highest and lowest amounts of snow.

Except for the huge chunk of everyone's paycheck that goes to pay for it that could instead be used for some of these other programs. We can't look at one particular program and say "it breaks even because of special taxes". Heck, you get mad when we talk about the 50% who pay no taxes because we're ignoring payroll taxes.

We're looking at total government revenue vs total government expenditures. That discrepancy leads to debt, which leads to interest, which keeps compounding so it is starting to spiral out of control. So we have to look at all money that comes in along with all money that goes out. If we cut social security, we could also cut social security taxes, which would let you raise general income taxes, which could help shrink the deficit or pay for other programs.

And right now social security is a pretty big budget chunk.

Not very presidential, a little too casual but hey, I laughed at it.

Obama in Ireland: 'I've come home' - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

I can only hope he's dead. What a month. If Omar was in Pakistan, taking out OBL in Pakistan must have made him looking behind his back and around every corner.

Afghan agency: Taliban chief has disappeared - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

I'm sure we can take the Pakistani's word for it.

And then you'd have no Social Security at retirement. And you'd have to realistically refund back to everyone what they've paid into it to-date in order to avoid the government getting their asses sued.

Short of that refund, getting sued would be the least of their worries. Being tarred, feathered, hung, drawn, and quartered would come long before any suit ever got to court.

This is true. As would the armed insurrection (omg...i have a feeling we'd agree on that. Fuck me sideways.)

Hey, it happens. Just because we disagree completely on proper means & worthy ends doesn't disqualify either of us from being competent observers of the world around us. And this ain't exactly a prediction that requires much more than an understanding of American psyche.

Hehe. And this is one case where I'd be there leading the insurrection, as would you I imagine.

Not a chance. We all know libs can't lead starving dogs to fresh meat. :D

Jokes aside, this conversation kind of points out why any abrupt change wouldn't fly. Truth is, there'd be plenty of both halves of the political spectrum preparing bags of feathers, boiling tar, and getting cocked, locked and ready to rock over anything that didn't involve at least a complete payback. It's that sort of broad reaction that makes it the third rail to end all third rails.

But it is different because the 12% tax was legislated specifically for Social Security first. It's the one program that has paid for itself and more over the past three decades. You can't say it's all the same when the law says it isn't. You can't take the FICA taxes and count them as a part of the general fund when the law says they aren't. Now if you want to change the law, go ahead and try.

SS isn't and has not been a part of the debt or deficit.

Isn't that the whole point of this entire discussion? How we're going to change the laws to fix the deficit?

And if we're going to stick to "realistic" fixes that people won't scream and moan about, aren't we doomed?

You originally said that SS was a big part of the deficit, and it simply isn't.

The last thing I read showed a 75 year projected SS deficit of 1.8% of GDP. Now that's not nothing, but it's pretty easily solved compared to the something like 7% of GDP needed to fix Medicare.

The shot term deficit can largely be fixed by returning to Clinton era tax levels and military spending. Unfortunately the Dems are too spineless to push for that and the GOP is more worried about remaking government. The long term deficit is almost all about medical costs, and that means restricting care or paying providers/suppliers less. The problem is that neither one of those are politically feasible.

Found the numbers in this article to be interesting. I certainly would be one that would like my representatives to vote down most of this aid and keep it at home.

It's All Your Money: Foreign Aid to Muslim/Arab nations - FoxNews.com

No more or less so than if we focus on those that are about as feasible as planting a grove of money trees. Plus, me & DT weren't talking about screaming & moaning ... unless you mean what Congresspeople would be doing after they're tarred & feathered.

I almost get a feeling that you thought he & I were engaging in random hyperbole. I'm pretty sure we were both fairly serious about the life expectancy of those who voted for (as the discussion somehow turned to) killing S.S. without giving the money back to those who put it in.

Indeed we were. And all of it back - in cash (well a check, but not some treasury bonds). With interest - figured at historical rates over time, rather than all at present-day rate (since AT A MINIMUM) it would have been sitting in the bank earning interest for me (realistically it would have been earning more, but there's no equitable way to assign what it would have been earning to different people, so I'm willing to accept a lowest-common-denominator).

Again, deficit = revenue - expenditures. I'm looking at totals here. But fine, we'll throw social security and its associated taxes completely out of the discussion here.

The last thing I read showed a 75 year projected SS deficit of 1.8% of GDP. Now that's not nothing, but it's pretty easily solved compared to the something like 7% of GDP needed to fix Medicare.


No it can't. The budget proposed was what, $3.8 trillion with a $1.6 trillion deficit? You are going to make up a $1.6 trillion revenue gap in one year by cutting military spending $400 billion and the Clinton tax levels are going to give you $1.2 trillion in extra revenue? That's 50% extra coming in from the people ($2.2 trillion in revenue INCLUDING social security taxes which we threw out above). I went through these numbers earlier (weeks/months ago when Obama first threw this budget out there), spending is increasing outrageously, cutting defense and going to Clinton tax numbers simply won't do it. They'll help, but they aren't going to cut the gap. The Dems are going to have to give on something, too. That's not saying the Repubs have been willing to budge on either one of your proposals, but still your fix is all about making the Repubs cave on their issues, no mention of a Dem specialty getting the ax.

I can't find your numbers, but I'd be almost certain that they include recovery spending. Once you take that out non-defense discretionary spending went from 496 billion in FY 2011 to 462 billion in FY 2012. In addition Obama has proposed a five year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending with a cap on increases at the rate of inflation after the freeze expires. That is estimated to save @400 billion over ten years.

Obama also cut 500 billion in Medicare over the next decade and the ACA is projected to cut the twenty year deficit by over two trillion. Reports say that the Dems on the Gang of Six were willing to agree to another 400 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Obama and Senate Dems have also expressed a willingness to make modifications in SS. A small age increase and lowering the rate of growth in the COLA have both been discussed and seem to have support of a solid block of Dem Senators.

Now I'll throw the question back on you. What have Republicans either cut or shown a willingness to cut from their priorities?

I agree with Jon and DT. Cutting SS right now is not much different from having your bank come out and say "we decided this whole savings account thing just isn't working so we're going to just take that from you". Whatever your thoughts are on SS, how it's run, etc is irrelevant. The issue is people paid in lots of money over the course of decades expecting that money to be there. That's stealing from them and that leads to angry mobs.

I guess I just assumed that money would never actually be there when I retired, so I've always treated that as general money going to the government. The government steals money like that all the time (e.g. loterries that fund "education" really being used so they can send general funds elsewhere) that it's not something I've ever bothered with. I just figured everyone would be all upset that more "free government money" went away.

But then again I don't see any actual hope for any real reform and think we're just going to get driven right off this cliff.

Absolutely nothing. I was pissed off at how they handled the budget under Bush, and I think most Repubs on here were as well. I've said over and over again that I'm willing to give on defense and taxes, I still want to know what you're willing to give on. So far the answer is "nothing", or maybe "when healthcare gets fixed, it will all go away, as long as the Repubs have let defense shrink and taxes go up". Given that fixing healthcare also seems to remain a pipedream, I don't see you're actual solution working anywhere.

We have a $1.6 trillion deficit THIS YEAR. You re talking cuts over decades. So your numbers above saved:

$34 billion in FY 2012 on non-defense discretionary spending (averaging $40 billion / year over the decade)
$50 billion on Medicare (each year for a decade)
$100 billion on ACA (each year for 20 years)
$40 billion on Medicare (each year for 10 years)

Congratulations, we've cut $230 billion, only $1.37 trillion left to go! And yes, I'd love see Repubs agree to cut, say, $400 billion from defense. Now, what will tax increases do? We have $2.2 trillion in revenue now (including social security taxes), we want that to go to $3.1 trillion? 40% more revenue? I think we need a few more hundred billion here.

The numbers just don't add up without a major change.

Part of the massive deficit is due in part to the recession and extremely low tax revenues. That will change dramatically when the economy gets going.

Big +1.

This looks like a good chart:

File:Revenue and Expense to GDP Chart 1993 - 2008.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The huge spike on that chart is FY 2009 and that was under Bush.

Some of us realize that people of both parties do stupid things and that we're really tired of either side continuing to make a mess of the country. I could give a rat's ass who did what. It cannot continue.

I'm for tweaking SS to keep it solvent. I'm fine with the discretionary spending freeze. I'd love to eliminate farm subsidies. I'm sure there are a number of programs I could do without, but really the non-defense discretionary portion of the budget isn't where we need to make changes.

It really is all about healthcare. I'd love to add a public option and use the bargaining power of the government to reduce costs. That or limiting coverage are the only answers. While I have a preferred option, the problem is there isn't anywhere near a consensus with the public. The House GOP is going to get killed over the Ryan budget and the Dems already took a beating for the ACA.

Until that dynamic changes, yeah we are fucked.

But it does matter when the original argument was that Obama had gone crazy with spending.

It's totally depressing that regardless of political affiliation/desires, we'll all be paying taxes towards old people and financial promises we ourselves never made.

We can fight over the 20% of the budget or so that can actually be changed, but we're fucked on the 80%.