Posted on 12/07/2012 1:29:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I hadn’t thought to think of it that way, and I certainly cannot poke any holes in your argument.
In 2007, the Federal Govt took in the largest amount of revenue ever in its history; $2.568 trillion. It spent $2.787 trillion with a deficit of $160 billion, a fairly easy fix to get that budget back in balance. I know what’s transpired since... but the pain is in paying off the $16 trillion.... This year, revenue will be close to it all time high, only off by a few billion but yet we will spend $1.3 trillion more than we take in. Has the economy changed so much that we can’t survive without the Govt over spending by $1.3 trillion? I just don’t get it. There’s got to be more to this story.
I don’t get it either.
But even if they completely eliminate the DOD, they’re still going to be nearly a trillion in the hole (remember that a lot of what gets spent by the DOD comes back as income tax), and getting rid of the DOD puts a lot of people out of work (for the sake of this discussion, I’m bypassing the topic of what happens when the country is left defenseless).
Once they start cutting into that last trillion, “the usual suspects” will be out there inciting riots.
When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2926391/posts
Cloward Piven strategy with a twist.
What is going on is a concerted effort to overspend to bring the entire monetary system down, while buying votes for the Dems and while transferring huge amounts of cash to Dem crony capitalists, causes(Islam Caliphate, enivrowhackos,etc.), and unions, which re-cycle the leftovers to the Dems.
A masterful plan,started in the 60's with LBJ and the Great Society, increased incrementally in the 70s/80s/90s/ and 00s, ramped up to full speed ahead operation by the Zero Administration, Pelosi and Reid since 2008.
All with OUR money.
And the firewall, the GOP House led by Boehner, is made of paper.
Anything else I can explain for you? ;)
Nope... good job on this stuff.... really wasn’t sure of the Cloward Piven strategy was for real...but more and more I look it.... it does meet the “Occem’s Razor” threshold in my book... its sad.
So... Exit82... are you from NJ?
Used to be a Garden Stater. Now live in southern DE.
The FICA holiday isn't a tax cut. It's people not paying into the federal insurance programs from which they're expecting a payout at a later date. Before you tell me that it a) isn't insurance and b) is never going to be paid, stop wasting both of our time. The federal government DEFINES it as a federal insurance program. That's what the letters in FICA stand for. The fact that it's eventually going to be broke is immaterial to the fact that it's one way that the 47% are forced to contribute to America. You aren't going to get the 47% to put up money to fund the country any other way.
I'll tell you why I'm against it, the ROI on these disbursements will be negative for my generation and beyond, that's why. Earlier generations made out like bandits by piling debt, but the tipping point has come and gone already. I won't even get back dollar for dollar, never mind inflation. I don't get any warm and fuzzies knowing everyone else is getting screwed on it too.
The FICA holiday isn't a tax cut. It's people not paying into the federal insurance programs from which they're expecting a payout at a later date.
If I'm paying $10k tax one year and $9k tax next year, that is a cut. There is no other way to define it accurately.
Before you tell me that it a) isn't insurance and b) is never going to be paid, stop wasting both of our time. The federal government DEFINES it as a federal insurance program. That's what the letters in FICA stand for.
and if the Federal government defined the earth as flat, would that make it so? Insurance isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul. Insurance is using premiums to buy income generating assets which are then used to pay claims. SS, Medicare, etc. are welfare systems, they were only called 'insurance' by the government to get over the public's anathema to welfare. You want to accept propaganda as gospel, or deal in reality?
The fact that it's eventually going to be broke is immaterial to the fact that it's one way that the 47% are forced to contribute to America.
No eventually about it, it is already broke by definition, as there are no actual marketable investments held by these 'insurances'. It relies on borrowing to pay current claims, as the taxes no longer cover the programs.
You aren't going to get the 47% to put up money to fund the country any other way.
Lower income has always paid the income tax. It is only recent 'tax reform' (Bush's in particular) that created sufficient deductions to take millions of them off the rolls. The main appeal of Cain was his desire to eliminate the payroll/income tax distinction with a flat tax on income. I'm not a fan of his eventual goal of a federal sales tax, but historically you are incorrect suggesting that income taxes can't be collected from lower income. It was from the word go.
I'll just demolish the main points of what you think are rebuttals.
Your first point is that because we can't meet current or future obligations, it follows logically that we should pay even less. In a word: duh.
You second point -- I guess, if you have one -- is that you define a program in which people pay for only their own insurance, and not even all of that must be called a tax because the premium is inadequate to meet the obligation. Bzzzt. 100% WRONG, again. It doesn't make it any less of an insurance program just because it's insolvent. It makes it a badly run insurance program, that's all.
Your implicit belief, that we shouldn't pay our insurance premiums into these programs because they can't meet their obligations and are going to be cut is pure NONSENSE. These programs ARE NOT going to be cut. We are simply going to monetize away the outstanding debt. In that event -- which we agree is inevitable -- the less of that which has to be done, the better. And the best way to minimize the impact of a badly run program that won't disappear is to at least continue to force people to make some payments on the obligations they'll be requiring politicians to pretend they're meeting by printing play money.
These programs AREN'T GOING TO BE CUT. EVER. Not nominally. So suck it up. It's reality.
You next make the incredibly silly statement: "It relies on borrowing to pay current claims, as the taxes no longer cover the programs."
You mean the "taxes" that deadbeats like you insist on not paying? I'm paying 15.3% up to the top, and I get lectures from deadbeats. OY Vey.
Lower income has always paid the income tax.
False. The EITC was enacted while Ford was President. Bush increased the EITC from 10% to 14%. Before the EITC there were zero brackets, I know, because as a student from 1970-1979 in college and graduate school, I filed, but paid ZERO income tax until my stipend reached $7500, in 1977. That is, I paid no tax for the first six years of the decade -- all before the EITC. Furthermore, I paid an effective tax rate of LESS than zero for 1977, 1978, and 1979, because in 1980, my income increased by over 1000% and I was able to average those years. So please. I wasn't born yesterday.
but historically you are incorrect suggesting that income taxes can't be collected from lower income. It was from the word go.
Who said they can't be? They're collected by States and Municipalities all over the country.
But here, we're talking about Federal taxes, and please don't insult both of our intelligence by pretending that a country that was willing to put up 1% on incomes up to (inflation adjusted) $455,000 in 1913 bears any resemblance to the country we live in today. That country is gone forever, and like the fantasy you have that politicians are going to (visibly) cut Social Security, the fantasy you have that low income people will be paying Federal Income tax -- ever again -- is one you need to get over. We're way past the day when ANY politician will propose that low income people should pay their fare share of taxes. Hell, you don't even think they should pay their fair share of what you describe as "welfare programs" which benefit them directly.
People don't pay 'their own insurance' in these programs. The government does not collect premiums, invest in income generating assets, and then pay claims from those assets (that would have been rational, but I have plenty of reason to doubt their efficacy in carrying it out). That's what insurance does. The government simply collects taxes and directly transfers those taxes to the welfare recipients as defined by the law (by age, disability, etc.) That is not 'insurance', it is welfare. Why carry water for the Left's propagandists and call a tail a leg?
Your implicit belief, that we shouldn't pay our insurance premiums into these programs because they can't meet their obligations and are going to be cut is pure NONSENSE. These programs ARE NOT going to be cut. We are simply going to monetize away the outstanding debt. In that event -- which we agree is inevitable -- the less of that which has to be done, the better.
I disagree with your conclusion, and I'll explain why: I can more easily protect my earnings against inflation than I can the payroll tax collection.
Google: gunslingr3 greenspan
Your first result will be a post on this forum in 2005, by me, citing the future to come: "We can guarantee cash payments from here on out, what we cannot guarantee is the purchasing power of that cash." -Alan Greenspan during remarks on Social Security, Feb 16, 2005
Since 1998 I've been protecting my purchasing power because I expect that the politicians will take the easiest course, and let the Fed print to meet the scheduled welfare payments. The more of my earnings the government takes, the less I can hedge against their profligacy.
You next make the incredibly silly statement: "It relies on borrowing to pay current claims, as the taxes no longer cover the programs."
Whether or not you consider it silly, it is the reality. Since 2010 the programs are in the red (combination of losing over 6 million payrolls in this recession and a jump in those moving onto those welfare rolls). This even before the recent cut in the payroll tax rate, which merely exacerbated this phenomena.
You mean the "taxes" that deadbeats like you insist on not paying? I'm paying 15.3% up to the top, and I get lectures from deadbeats.
No need for scare quotes, the Supreme Court clarified in Flemming v Nestor that these collections are taxes, and confer no property right to the taxpayer. We're at the mercy of the Congress.
Born as I was in 1975, with the payroll tax rates I will pay during my lifetime and current benefit schedule in law, I will not get back even a dollar for each dollar I paid in. The deadbeats are actually the generations since inception that collected payouts well in excess of what they paid in taxes, and left future generations the debt.
Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior economic adviser, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, professor of Economics at Boston University document the looming Social Security and Medicare crises in "Is War Between Generations Inevitable?" They report that "A male reaching 65 years of age today (in 2000, the year of their study) can expect to receive $71,000 more in government 'transfer' benefits (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels, but mainly from Social Security and Medicare) than he will pay in taxes (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels) before he dies. A 65-year-old female can expect a net gain of more than twice that amount; she can expect $163,000 more in benefits than she will pay in taxes."
The picture is not so rosy for people who entered the labor force in 2000. They will pay far more in taxes than they will receive from transfer programs. Expansion of elderly handouts, such as prescription drugs, will make things worse. "For example: A 20-year-old female can expect to pay $92,000 more in taxes than she will receive in transfer benefits over her lifetime. The future looks more than three times as bleak for her male cohort, who can expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he will ever receive in benefits." - Walter Williams
If you think increasing taxes will solve this, or even ameliorate the problems ahead, we must disagree.
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.