Posted on 12/10/2004 9:42:59 AM PST by HostileTerritory
If the federal government would stop wasting so much money NOW, they could solve this problem for the future. Instead, they continue to fund every project and idea and waste imaginable.
(Where is the list of wasteful government spending?)
What the government is really say is this: Our wasteful spending is more important than the future of this country. Instead of showing some fiscal responsibility now, we are going to keep on spending and frittering away your future.
Exactly...I really believe that fiscal responsibility is an abhorrent concept to most public servants. It's sooo easy to spend other people's money...especially when you can kick responsibility for your horrid spending habits down the line and blame the other party for "tax-and-spend" policies. That is one area where Republicans and Democrats are incredibly chummy...spending MY money is a bipartisan activity.
It is really annoying to be involuntarily handing over a chunk of your income for someone else's retirement lack-of-plan and have to voluntarily save more on top of it to take care of myself and my family. I would be able to retire a heckuva lot earlier if I could contribute both sums to my own PRIVATE account. I honestly don't care if that enriches Wall Street...they get paid to do this kind of stuff, after all.
Interesting.
After WWII, the U.S. had an even larger debt, as a percentage of its economy. Still, we managed to pay it off in 10 years, and rebuild Europe at the same time, without collapsing the dollar.
We can do that again if the government pursues the same pro-growth policies.
Should have had this conversation 60 years ago, before Social Security was ever voted into law. Fact is, it's been a Ponzi scheme from Day One, with each successive generation expected to pay fer the retirement of the previous generation, then arbitrarily selecting the age of 65 for folks to no longer be productive members of society. It's time we began to fix this structurally-flawed system.
FReegards...MUD
A short explanation on raising the retirement age.
Anybody may retire at age 62, if they so desire, and take a reduced annuity from Social Security. Between age 62 and age 65, if you earn over a certain minimum level, your Social Security is reduced by a certain amount for each dollar you earn over that level, until you eventually opt out of all Social Security payments. At age 65, you become eligible to earn as much money as you want, and your monthly stipend shall NOT be reduced.
For those who were born after January 1, 1938, the retirement age for full benefits was already raised, from 65 years to 65 years and two months. After January 1, 1940, the retirement age for full benefits was raised to 65 years and four months. Every two years, the retirement age for full benefits is scheduled to be increased by two months, so persons born after January 1, 1962, shall have to be 67 in order to collect full benefits. Beginning in the year 2029, all normal retirements shall begin at age 67.
The future children do not have a moral obligation to pay the bills. That's right folks, they can default or partially default on the government bonds. Our country will still produce what it can produce. There will be a lot of disruption, but let us get one thing clear, those bonds DO NOT have to be paid in full. Every bond holder assumes a certain risk in buying a bond. If the coutry cannot pay them off , then they will not be paid off.
In all likely hood, there will be a reduction in benefits, a partial default on governemt paper and taxes will be higher.
Don't think the future generations can say "pound salt" to the bond holders?
Here is a little secret - they can.
Naw, that was Fine Young Cannibals.
Proud Young Americans for Truth was a liberal front group during the Vietnam conflict, I think.
If you think that borrowing 2 trillion dollars to perpetuate social security is a good idea, you are going to be in the vast minority when it proves otherwise. As soon as I heard they were going to borrow more for it, I knew this plan would fail miserably, even if it sailed through Congress.
I would be in support of borrowing exponentially more to cash America entirely out of Social Security, as would most Americans, I think. But I can't be for borrowing MORE to support Bush's pet plan to make it more 'owned' and 'efficient,' when we all know that twenty years from now, Hillary and her pals will be trumpeting the notion of how 'the market failed people.'
Far better to borrow a ton to be rid of it altogether. Instead, we're tinkering. Tinkering is surrendering.
Somebody has to pay it at some point, but this 2 trillion won't even fix the problem! It'll just create a 'problem' for the Rats to 'solve' when the market has dipped again and they can claim people 'lost money' in stocks.
I'm sorry, but the more I look at it, the more I see this as a recipe for the feds just scooping Roths and 401Ks back up in the future, in a 'we'll fix the whole thing' collectivist solution.
Somebody has to pay it at some point, but this 2 trillion won't even fix the problem! It'll just create a 'problem' for the Rats to 'solve' when the market has dipped again and they can claim people 'lost money' in stocks.
I'm sorry, but the more I look at it, the more I see this as a recipe for the feds just scooping Roths and 401Ks back up in the future, in a 'we'll fix the whole thing' collectivist solution.
I always get them confused with that musical supergroup - Crosby, Proud, Truth and Young.
I think you mean $7 trillion. $7 billion is such a trivial sum these days you should be thankful if that is all that your government ever wasted on a stupid idea.
".... I'm 28, and I have to admit I am concerned about the U.S. borrowing so much money."
The SS tax increase in 1983 provided the gov't with a ready source of cash to spend, and spend they did and then some.
The big issue now for gov't is that they don't have as much money from social security to spend on pet causes above and beyond the cost of SS.
This is the REAL reason why we are addressing the "issue" now, and why many democrats were excited to support the "let's increase the social security tax" trial balloon.
As always, the key to limiting government scope and size is on the spending side of the equation, ala Gramm-Rudman which was initially marginally successful before congress learned how to game it.
The key to limiting spending is to have a direct feedback mechanism to the citizenry in the form of a variable tax rate. In other words, if the citizenry votes, through their congressmen to provide a benefit or entitlement, then the tax consequences occur almost immediately. Conversely, spending cuts quickly benefit the taxpayer.
SS has the "hidden" portion that deceptively funds bigger governement. Honesty in collecting taxes will help us solve ALL the problems we have in government, including Social Security........
Anyway, it's not so much the borrowing as it is the spending.....
Thanks
We had a 26% inflation rate in 1946, the highest in modern times. We were on the Bretton Woods foreign exchange system in which the value of the dollar was guaranteed (exchangeable in gold at a fixed price), so collapsing the dollar was very difficult. But it finally did collapse in the early 1970's and we paid for it with high inflation and a stagnant economy in that decade.
You are right about pro growth policy. There is no other policy that has anywhere near the leverage when it comes to keeping inflation in check, a currency stable, and increasing the standard of living. (A balanced budget, something Hoover and Carter promoted, pales in comparison.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.