Buffett should "write a check and shut up"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...tie-buffett-should-write-a-check-and-shut-up/

I sort of liked Christie, and there was a chance he would one day get my vote, until now. I can understand comments like this coming from the likes of Newt, or Romney, but I expected more of Christie. And I bet the Republicans would like Buffett to shut up. His constant harping puts the absurdity of their tax policies in the spot light. No wonder they're annoyed.

But I like the Buffett rule. I think the Republicans [and everyone else] making over $1 million should just write a check, do their part to support their country, and stop whining.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Christie's an arrogant SOB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He may be arrogant, but he is one of few politicians I have seen who actually speaks how he feels (as much as a politician is capable of doing). Regarding Buffett, he was absolutely correct. If he wants to give a government that needlessly throws away money a bigger check, he is more than welcome to do it and should just shut up. Buffett's response to Republicans that he will write a check the same size anyone else in Congress does shoes how clueless he has become. No Republican has said that they WANT to give the government more money or think anyone else should. What he has, however, is other priorities in supporting the Obama campaign that are less altruistic. I too wish Buffett would just shut his trap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sure you and many Republican/Tea Party folks do wish Buffett would keep his mouth shut. It makes it much easier to ignore reality that way. What Buffett wants, what Democrats and most Americans want is a prosperous economy and a fiscally responsible government in Washington. Unfortunately for Republicans and the nation, fiscal responsibility is not found in Republican sound bytes and even more unfortunate for the nation, Republican policy.

As the old saying goes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (attributed to Edmund Burke).

 

He and every shill for the corporate elite that has knuckled their way into the pantheon of mass media supported neoConfederates since God made Reagan governor of California.

God in the form of oil industry thugs and finance industry pirates and used car salesmen and real estate speculators, anyway.

I live in Michelle Bachmann's long under-represented home district, and trust me - speaking how you feel is only as wonderful, informed, worthwhile, prudent, sound, or respectable a practice as the feelings themselves are. If the only actual feeling available is that rich people pay too much tax, speaking that feeling over and over does not qualify someone for political office.

Buffet is right, is the problem: the thirty year free ride of the corporate elite should be brought up short, as soon as possible. The country can't afford too much more of this.

 

Who said I was tea party? Anyone who disagrees with Buffett supports the tea party in your fuzzy logic? You have not responded to anything I said, but rather put words into my mouth. Obama is fiscally sound? He has added 5 trillion in debt over three years, an increase of 50%. But I will say Bush was just as bad, and this is why I do not trust government with my dollars.
Again, if Buffett wanted to pay more taxes, he could, and he chooses not to because he is not an idiot. He knows this is a waste, and this is why he needs to keep his mouth shut.



If your desire is to lessen the income gap, than giving the government more money is the worst way to do so. The have proven over the years that money meant for citizens benefit is thrown away. This is why Romney decided to give such a large part of his income to charity, and why Republicans in general choose to do so.

If you want to respond to what I have written, then do so. If not, you can join Buffett in zipping it.

In the end, raising taxes on the wealthy is not a solution to the vast debt problem, only significant cuts to the programs that cost the most. This includes Social Security, and of course, Medicare. The top 10% of income earners already pay 70%+ of all income taxes while 50% of Americans pay nothing at all. Is this what Obama means when he says the wealthy need to pay there "fair share"? Is this, in your opinion, an accurate statement?

Liberals need to come to the conclusion that there is simply NO MONEY left, and cuts MUST be made. If this continues, the U.S. government WILL BE bankrupt in 10 years. This is not a scare tactic, or a tea party slogan; this is just a statement of fact.

 

Yes who said you were Tea Party? I didn't. You just like defending Tea Party positions.

No this is you using your own brand of fuzzy logic to create a straw man fallacy.

What have you said, other than you wish Warren Buffet would keep his mouth shut? If you should say something more worth commenting on, I would be happy to respond to it.

YES.

I think you need to look past the Republican/Tea Party sound bytes and look at the real facts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

What you know what Warren Buffet knows? You have ESP? You want to talk about fuzzy logic, this is it. It doesn't get any fuzzier.

Warren Buffet is not an idiot. Mr. Buffett has given away the vast bulk of his assets upon his death...given them to charity. But even if Mr. Buffet were to give all of his billions to the Federal government it would not solve the nations debt and deficit problems. Collectively taxing all people of wealth will however have an impact on the nation's deficits and debts. Buffet is not advocating your position, he is advocating that all wealthy people pay more in taxes – at least as much as the average working stiff in percentage of income terms.

So you think that money that is supposed to be spent for citizens is thrown away, then prove it. Are you saying all the money spend for Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare or the money spend on VA benefits is thrown away?

Are you saying that everything has to be perfect? If it is anything less than 100 percent perfect then it should be trashed? If that is the case, then nothing would happen because nothing is perfect.

Additionally, this is not about income disparity. It is about fiscal responsibility. Your trying to throw the issue of charity into the mix is just more of your famous fuzzy logic.

I think you need to look at the impact the George II tax cuts for the wealthy had on the nation's finances (see my previous link). Additionally, I think you need to stop repeating Republican/Tea Party sound bytes. Instead of looking at “income tax” you should be looking at the total tax burden. Average Joe's and Jane pay a large portion of their incomes in tax than people like Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet pays 16 percent of his income on tax whereas his secretary pays 35 percent. Something is more than a little unfair there. Certainly the wealthy can afford to at least pay what the average working stiff is paying in income tax (as a percentage of income). By the way, US income taxes are at a 70 year low. They have not been lower since WW II.

The US debt problem needs more than just one remedy. It is not just cutting spending and it is not just increasing taxes. It is a combination of all the above. The Republican/Tea Party position is just as you have advocated. And it is fiscally irresponsible. Tax increases will be needed. And those best able to pay those increases are the wealthy.

So called “liberals” have come to that conclusion – that spending cuts are needed. And they have offered up spending cuts on multiple occasions. Republicans/Tea Partiers need to come to a similar conclusion on their end – that tax increases are also necessary – something that they have consistently failed to understand.

 

I already said he WAS NOT an idiot. My simple point was that if he WANTS to pay more in taxes, or truly believes the wealthy should, he could easily do so on his next tax return. The fact that you mention he is giving the bulk of his assets to charity only CONFIRMS the fact that he would prefer to go that route than give it to the government. He is doing exactly want Romney has preferred; giving a substantial percent of his income to charity. Of course if he gave all his money it would not make a dent. The point is that he stated that he feels the wealthy should give more, and he has the opportunity to do so. He has not. This would make him a hypocrite by any definition. I am not sure how you believe you can argue this point.

No, I do not think it is all thrown away, just done inefficiently like most government run institutions. Social Security is a perfect example of a failed trust program. Depending on the state, most private pension programs are required to be funded by at least 80% or more. How much is the Social Security trust funded? 0%. 2.6 Trillion reserves have been borrowed by the treasury in non-marketable Treasury debt. The quote below describes the SS trust perfectly.

"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. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"

It is a program that is supported by current tax revenue, instead of by putting the money in a diversified secure investment. Putting all of the funds into the Fed is a conflict of interest if I have ever seen one. Nations do not invest in such a manner, why should the Social Security Trust fund?

Take a look at the post office, a government run entity. It has a 10 billion dollar shortfall and is on the brink of collapse, because the bureaucracy cannot make simple cutbacks due to politics.

Medicare and Medicaid have such enormous problems with inefficiency, fraud, and unnecessary costs that it would take to long to list them all here. I am sure that you will agree that simply due to increase in health costs as well as increase age that changes need to be made? Obama has offered no changes in any of his budgets, while the Republicans have had the guts to at least make suggestions.

I bring up income disparity due to Obama's excessive use of the word "fair". He wanted to give everyone their "fair shot" or pay their "fair share".

I have already stated that Bush was a fiscal nightmare. I also have stated that Obama is just as bad. Repealing just the tax cuts of the wealthy will not make a dent. If it is to be done, it needs to be completely repealed for all income brackets. Also, it needs to be done with major changes to Social Security and Medicare. Any budget that does not address those programs is simply a case of kicking the can down the road. Obama has not addressed those issues, and he has included a health plan that is sure to increase government costs (even the government is admitting it will cost 1.6 trillion). The costs of that program, like all government programs, will continue to grow if it is not thrown out by the Supreme Court. This is why I state Obama is fiscally irresponsible. He only spews populist rhetoric, and what he thinks people want to hear. People do not want to hear that their benefits need to be cut, but that is the reality, and at least the Republicans have stated as much.

The above article was originally written by the New York times, so that already qualifies it as leaning left. Also, conveniently left out is the cost of ObamaCare. And tax cuts are not a "cost". Obama had plenty of opportunity to repeal those tax cuts while he had both the House and the Senate, but he did not (even to the wealthy). Finally, I have already stated that Bush is was a fiscal mess, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The Republicans and Democrats have created this debit problem together. My point is that at least the Republicans have the nerve to state that Social Security and Medicare need to be cut, while the Democrats live a fantasy, just like Buffett. Buffett needs to keep his mouth shut until he does what he says the wealthy need to do: pay more taxes.


"The US debt problem needs more than just one remedy. It is not just cutting spending and it is not just increasing taxes. It is a combination of all the above. The Republican/Tea Party position is just as you have advocated. And it is fiscally irresponsible. Tax increases will be needed. And those best able to pay those increases are the wealthy."

I agree with you that the remedy of tax increases, but on just the wealthy will not make a dent (part of the reason 50% of tax payers pay no income taxes is due to tax fraud. The IRS has stated that it has cost them more than a trillion dollars last year). I do not agree with the Tea Party that lower taxes are necessary, but I agree that Social Security and Medicare need major changes. The tax code needs to be simplified in order to make sure everyone pays their "fair" share. You mentioned that the rates were historically low, but this is a fallacy. For instance, corporations pay a 35% rate in the United States, one of the highest in developed countries, but what they actually PAY is much less due to tax breaks. During the 60's in the United States at one point, the tax rate was 90% on the highest incomes, but they actually PAID less than now due to a variety of tax breaks and shelters. Buffett knows this, he supports Obama for a variety of reasons other than fairness of the tax code.

 

That is not the issue. The issue is you claimed to know what Mr. Buffett is thinking. And clearly you do not. You don't have ESP. You kind of missed the whole point. You seem to think, if one is to believe your writings that you know the intentions and unexpressed thoughts of others.

You are the one who raised the issue of charity. Incidentally, it is not relevant to the discussion. It is more of that fuzzy thinking. Two, Charity in Romney terms is the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church). It is a condition that is mandated by his church. It is a condition for salvation. Charity in Buffett terms is secular and given without the expectation of salvation in the after life.

Three there is nothing hypocritical about Buffett's position on taxation. He feels, that the wealthy should pay at least as much in terms of percent of income as the average working stiff. Buffett is not advocating that wealthy individuals donate to fix the nation's fiscal ills, because it won't work unless all of them do it. So Buffett's position on taxation is not hypocritical. It is a position Buffett has taken and he has been consistent.

Oh, and just how is Social Security a failed program? There are millions of seniors, ill and destitute who depend on their Social Security checks. Even the the right wing Cato Institute admits that Social Security administers the program more efficiently than private entities can. Social Security can be fixed with minor changes (e.g. raising the cap on income subject to Social Security tax).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-15es.html

For starters, all pensions are regulated by the federal government not the states and insured by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation – an agency of the federal government.

Two, Social Security is a pay as you go system. It has always been a pay as you go system. So all this talk of reserves is just bunk and always will be bunk and not germane.

Is there a point here somewhere? Yes current revenues are used to pay current obligations. It has been the case since the inception of the program some 80 years ago. But that has nothing to do with efficiency of the program.

Would you prefer the govenment purchasing corporate securities instead of government obligations? Would you prefer people who cannot read a balance sheet or income statement investing their own money? Investing is a tough game. It takes business/finance knowledge, time, and guts. Those are things you average worker bee does not have.

It also sounds that you do not understand the difference between private enterprise financing and government financing. They are two very separate and distinct methods of financing.

The USPS does have fiscal problems. But it is not on the brink of collapse. And who is responsible for the politics? We are. If we are not able to govern ourselves, perhaps we should just turn our government over to the Canadians and walk away. Because we then surely don't deserve to govern ourselves.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the efficiency of other government programs. Just because one agency has problems it does not follow that all government entities have similar problems. Just because an entity is government run, it does not follow that it is inefficient despite Republican/Tea Party rhetoric. Nor does it follow that just because an entity is private, it does not follow that it is efficient. That is just Republican/Tea Party nonsense.

I just provided you a link to the very conservative Cato Institute that refutes your claims about government inefficiency. So let's get real.

Healthcare costs will rise and changes will are needed. But President Obama has offered changed in his budgets and in his legislative actions. Let me remind you of the so called Obamacare bill that is now before the supremes. It was projected by the CBO to save over a trillion dollars from the nation's healthcare bill over the courses of the next 20 years.

The US is already spending nearly 20 percent of its income on healthcare. And that number is only going to rise if nothing is done to address the healthcare expense issue - the Republican/Tea Party solution. There are two possible solutions to our healthcare/fiscal problems. One, ration healthcare by wealth or make the American healthcare system more efficient – make it as efficient as the healthcare systems found in other industrial nations who provide better care and care for everyone for half the US cost.

Democrats are advocating the latter. Republicans are advocating rationing based on wealth.

That does not make it germane to the conversation. Because it is not.

Good.

Here is where you are wrong. You apparently didn't read the link I previously provided. The George II and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney tax cuts had a dramatic impact on the deficits and debt. And just because you don't like the answers, it doesn't mean the answers are wrong. Because they are not.

Two, President Obama inherited an economy on the brink of collapse. If Obama did nothing and let the economy fail, no stimulus, no auto industry bailouts, it is likely you would be in the streets right now and we would not be having this conversation.

The greatest risk to the nation's finances is a Great Recession or a Great Depression. Because as people loose their jobs they stop paying taxes and start receiving government benefits. That is a double whammy on the federal budget and debt. The single best thing Obama could have done, is what he did. Spend money on stimulus to protect jobs.

Additionally, the Obamacare was conservatively projected to save over a trillion dollars in the next decade by the CBO. And it is not like we don't have similar models to look at, because we do. Every other industrial nation in the world has gone to a program similar to Obamacare in order to improve care and control costs. And their healthcare costs are a small fraction of the cost in the US and with better outcomes. Obamacare works we have examples in action across the globe.

Wrong, Obamacare costs were in that link I provided. The sources for the article are valid. You just don't like what it says. It is a good dose of reality, I suggest you go back and reread it and do some research on your own.

Two, you are misrepresenting the positions of Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to only cut spending and benefits. They have no plans for making the US government or US healthcare as efficient and as effective as that found in other industrial nations. Republicans have no nerve whatsoever. They are just brown nosing their financial sponsors. The only solution Republicans have offered for our healthcare crisis is to keep the current inefficient and ineffective and expensive systems in place and for those who disagree with the to remain silent. That is not courage. That is cowardice.

Democrats have offered Republicans spending cuts on numerous occasions only to rebuffed. Because Democrats also want revenue increases, something Republicans have not done, probably because of their signed pledges to a powerful Washington lobbyist. Democrats have also offered proven methods of making our healthcare system more efficient and effective (as previously mentioned) – another one of those things Republicans have steadfastly refused to do.

Thanks for quoting me. But next time, give me credit for it.

Good we do need an all of the above solution to our fiscal problems. But the single best thing we can do to fix our debt and spending problems is to ensure that we have a growing economy. This fact is now not being lost on our European friends.

But this argument of the right that taxing the wealthy will not make a dent is just bunk. George II tax cuts for the wealthy were and remain a major contributor to the nations fiscal ills. And you are just wrong about tax fraud. That is not why many Americans don't pay income tax. It is because they don't earn enough money. But they do pay payroll taxes, sales taxes and state and local taxes in abundance.

It depends on what you mean by major changes. Social Security is the minor issue. Medicare is the real issue. Medicare and Medicaid will require major changes in our healthcare system. Healthcare in the US is too expensive with almost 20 percent of the GDP being spend on healthcare and healthcare costs growing at more than twice the inflation rate. That is just not sustainable. There is no good reason why healthcare in the US should be more than twice as expensive as that found in other industrial countries and have poorer outcomes.

Wrong, US taxes are at historic lows.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

And we end with you claiming to know what is inside Warren Buffett's head again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I have made no reference to what Mr. Buffett is thinking. I have made issue with the fact that he states the wealthy should pay more in taxes and he has the opportunity to pay more on his current tax return if he desires. He HAS NOT paid any more to the government than he HAS TO PAY. If you say someone else should do something, and you do not do it, it makes you a hypocrite. My issue is that he has the opportunity to do what he is telling others that they should do, and he is not doing it.

Did you read your own article? First, the article is written by a managing director of Chicago Capital, which the Cato institute has decided to post amongst many articles. This does not mean it supports the author. Second, the author is actually making the argument to privatize Social Security, because the costs would be only slightly more in administration fees.
What is paid in administration fees has nothing to do with the fact that the United States has spent the 2.6 trillion dollar surplus on its own debt, a ridiculous management decision. Also the fact that if no changes are made to Social Security, I will recieve only 70% of my benefit when I retire (I could put it in a CD and at least get a .10% increase).
When the Social Security was a program that was conceived 70 years ago, the average life expectancy was 62. Adjustments should have been made long ago, but politics got in the way. 2.6 Trillion was spent when it should not have been. You article above talks about administration costs, and does not answer the question of extreme mismanagement by the government.

Again, you stated it yourself. It has been part of the program since 1939, when the average life expectancy was 62. Though changes have been necessary for decades, they have not been made. A vast reserve, that could have kept the program solvent, was spent. This is not a success story, do you agree?

.

No, I have said none of the above. There are conservative ways to invest public funds that does not allow the government to use the Social Security fund as its own piggy bank. This is not in the best interest of its beneficiaries. It is simply another way for the government to fund itself, even though it is heading towards a financial meltdown in a decade.

Umm.. No. It is now projected to cost 1.76 Trillion by the CBO.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-costs-double-CBO/2012/03/14/id/432506


**see attached chart from CBO site**


How long do you think it will be before is is projected to 5 billion? I mean, did you really believe that a health plan that was going to insure millions of people would not include a price tag? The original projections included such ridiculous notions like "preventive care" helps decrease cost, rather than raise it. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act does nothing to actually DECREASE the costs of health care, but just puts more people into the insurance pool.


I have already mentioned it is in the Supreme Court and thankfully it will be tossed.

I agree that Obama had a tough economy to work with. I do not agree with the auto bailouts because bankruptcy without a government cash infusion would have yielded the same result in the end. Obama's attempt at creating jobs by investing in "infrastructure" was absolutely ridiculous. And as we now know, ObamaCare has an increasing price tag. As for saving jobs, lets take a little look at employment numbers. If you take the amount of people who were looking for jobs, employed, or were out of work in 2008, and use them today, unemployment would be over 13%. The working force size has shown a decrease of 49000 yet 7.2 million in population have entered the labor force? This is a numbers game by the Obama administration. Much like the lies you have been told regarding the price of ObamaCare.

Once again I will state that I am no fan of Bush. Obama still has a long way to go to achieve Bush's failures (like the two wars he started), but he is getting there. Four more years, and he may make it.

Your article alludes to what the graph below shows.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

The fact that what people pay vs GDP has much to do with the fact that the income is declining, not with tax policy. As income continues to grow, what they pay in GDP while increase to a norm, just like it was in 2007. When the economy tanks, people have less money to pay. Receipts to GDP is the most accurate way to determine taxes, and as you can see, it is well in line with historical trends.

What is with the inside Buffetts head thing? You are like Obama and his "fair" routine.

I agree, compared to the medicare debacle, SS seems small. There are countless reasons that medicine is more in the United States, but much of it has to do with health expectations and rationing of medicine. Though other nations health care systems are far from perfect, they ration medicine much better. In the end, people will have to accept that they will be able to receive a proven treatment for their disease, though it may not be the latest or the most expensive. The most expensive and latest is not always the best anyway, and other nations have proven. People in the United States feel that their life and health is worth any expense, but they never ask the question: where does that money come from? In the end, people will have to accept a cheaper treatment. Either the insurance companies or the government will need to regulate this, but as I have stated, the U.S. government makes a mess of things. Just because Canada has an efficient health plan does not mean the bureaucracy in D.C. can emulate it. I will say though that rising health costs is not a unique American problem.

I can tell you like the "fair" thing, don't you?

 

Yes you did, numerous times.

This is yet another example of that fuzzy logic you are so fond of my friend. Buffet is not advocating that wealthy individuals “donate” money to the federal government. He is advocating that government raise taxes so that all folks of wealth pay a tax rate at least equal to what your average working stiff pays.

Now if such a tax law were put into place and Buffett refused to pay the tax, he would be a hypocrite. But that has not happened. You don't seem to have the ability to understand the difference between advocating for a tax incrase and donating money. There is a difference.

This is fuzzy logic at its best. Unfortunately we see it all too often on the Republican/Tea Party side of the fence.

Of course I read the article. I used to article to refute your claim that private industry was more efficient than government. And clearly that is not the case using data from conservative sources. Clearly the federal government is much more efficient at running Medicare and Social Security than the private sector. Further other countries run their healtlhcare systems much more effectively and efficiently than we in the US have done to date. And we have a so called "private system" of healthcare.

Now we get back to your fuzzy logic and or your cognitive biases. What follows in that article is a another issue, completely unrelated to the topic at hand. You ignored the main point and focused on the unrelated material.

The author of the argument is arguing for privatization of Social Security. The author admits that the government is a more efficient administrator. But he argues that those inefficiencies would be mitigated by better returns in the market place – investing Social Security and Medicare assets in private markets versus buying government bonds. The number one rule of finance is higher return requires higher risk. So what he is arguing is in effect that Social Security funds be invested in higher risk investments.

The assumption of the author, is that every individual would be a good investor. And that is clearly not the case. That asumption is not borne out by history or fact. Your average Joe or Jane does not have the knowledge or temperament to invest and probably lacks the will as well. The author also ignores the vagaries of the market place, a market place that you can loose your principal in an instant. Returns in private markets are not assured as they are with government backed obligations.

Administration costs do matter. They prove that the government operates the program more efficiently that the private sector - which is contrary to your claims.

Two, your comments about the debt do not make sense. And frankly you don't know how much of a benefit you will receive when you retire. You don't know if you will get all of back or a fraction of what you paid back. You don't know and you cannot know. Additionally it is an insurance program. It is not a guaranteed program. It was never intended to give you everything you put in back. Some will get more, some will get less. And we don't know who will get more and who will get less. That is insurance.

Yes it does, mismanagement show up in the administrative costs. But being a conservative, I am sure you have a special definition of “mismanagement”. So please share it and provide some evidence to back up your claim.

No I do not agree. Where have you been? Changes have been periodically made to the program throughout the life of the programs. Medicare and Social Security are successful programs. Other industrial have programs similar to Medicare, but it is Medicare for all not just a few. It is Medicare for all. And they have better healthcare systems at half the cost.

You can argue that Social Security and Medicare funds should be invested in private industry. But that is another argument and then you have government ownership of a significant portion of the private economy. You want the government sitting on the board of GE?

If you are getting your news from sources like News Max, then I can understand why you are so misinformed. News Max is a conservative rag known to take liberties with the truth. The fact is your claim is WRONG.

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/ppaca-health-reform-cbo-cost-analysis-2722876-1.html

That number referenced GROSS cost and ignored revenues. The net cost, is less than the had CBO originally projected – not more as you and News Max claimed.

QUOTE=towards;2922892]
I have already mentioned it is in the Supreme Court and thankfully it will be tossed. [/QUOTE]

You sound like the same people who brought us George II and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney not once but twice. If you do not want to improve the efficiency of the US healthcare system by adopting proven models - models that have worked in other industrial countries - then you must be in favor of rationing healthcare by wealth. If you are wealthy and can afford healthcare great. But it you are not, then tough luck. You go without healthcare. Because if the supremes reject the healthcare law, and congress restrains spending, that is the only remaining option. If federal law requiring emergency treatment to be rendered regardless of abiltiy to pay, expenditures and debt will continue to rise until someone has the guts to tell seniors and all the uninsured folks that they are not going to get healthcare going forward period - emergency or not.

Oh, then where would those industries have gotten the money to finance a bankruptcy? The reason they were looking for a government handout is because the could not get the money in the market place. Because private sources of funding were not lending, markets had locked up.

So when the BLS produces these numbers under a Republican administration they are good. But when the same bureaucrats produce the numbers under a Democratic administration, they are wrong?

You are not making any sense here. But the bottom line is that the economy is consistently growing and the unemployment rate is down. And since 2009 we have seen over the 200k private sector jobs added to the economy month after month. President Obama's stimulus and investments have paid off and the proof is in the data - the real hard and clear data.

But I bet you voted for him not once but twice.

Wrong again. Tax rates are at historic lows no matter how you choose to measure it. Using the conservative Heritage Foundation numbers, tax receipts to GDP plunged with the the implementation of the George II tax cuts. And it will rise because those tax cuts expire at the end of the year. It is important to note that this chart has historical data and projected data.

The Heritage Foundation is predicting that rates will return to more normal levels. That does not mean they will.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts

You keep writing that you know what he is thinking, and clearly you don't. Stop saying you know what Buffet is thinking, and the “Buffett thing” ends.

You have any evidence to support your conclusion?

I would like to see some supporting evidence. Those other industrial countries provide healthcare coverage for all of their citizens and residents and at half the US cost and with better outcomes. So how is it that fit in to your notion that other industrial countries are better at rationing healthcare – talk about fuzzy logic?

How is it Americans differ from people in any other industrial nation in regards to healthcare expectations? By the way, Obamacare establishes and rewards best practices based on clinical evidence which reduces costs and improves outcomes. It rewards providers based on outcome not procedures rendered as is the current practice in the United States.

So what makes you think that The United States cannot do what every other industrial nation in the world has done at least as well? And is the fear of not being perfect justify keeping the current inefficient and increasingly ineffective healthcare system currently in place? I guess you are not a believer in American exceptionalism.

Back to the ESP thing again I see. I like the pragmatic thing – the thing that solves our collective problems (e.g. debt and deficits)

 

Christie is right. For one of the wealthiest men in the world to say taxes should be higher is dumb. If he wants to pay he should, but using his position to lobby for other people to pay higher taxes is arrogant and misguided. For the taxes we already pay we get two wars most Americans don't want. We pay for millions/billions? in foreign aid that we don't agree with etc...

 

Originally posted by joepistole

You took two of my quotes, and only one actually had reference to "what he was thinking". One line is far from putting words into his head, but I am not sure why you have made such a point of this anyway. What is the point of a political forum if not to debate what someone is thinking?

Yes, it is the same thing. He could easily figure out the number that Obama has stated he should be paying (30%) and pay the difference. He does not need to "donate" some abstract number. If he truly believes it should be done, why not just do it? That would go a long way to making a point, would it not? He has no intention of doing it, and he knows it will never pass. All of this is Obama making speeches about things he feels his supporters want to hear, whether it is a realistic bill or not. Populist rhetoric is what Obama does.

My argument was the fact that spending 2.6 trillion towards U.S. debt only (social security is largest holder of U.S. debt) and the fact that I will only receive 78% of my "promised benefits" is the major issue. Your article DID NOT respond to those two points. The fact is that administrative costs are a tiny part and expense of running a program well. The fact that it is low cost to take a percentage of a persons paycheck and put it into Treasury bonds does not mean the government is running the program responsibly, as proven by the information above.

O.K, let me get past the semantics, and state that I will only receive 78% of my "promised benefits", the term SS uses. Yes, there is a dollar amount you put in, and a formula they use for return (did you ever read your SS statement?)

The information below is directly from Wikipedia, but you can get it from numerous sources. They use the term "scheduled payments" instead of "promised benefits", so I do not want to confuse you.

Here is the way Social Security figures out your benefit if you are interested in finding out "what you don't know and cannot know". They actually have a calculator that you can use your own personal information on the SS website as well.

I guess we can figure it out after all.

These changes have generally been to either the rate or to increase benefits, like disability. No changes have been made to prevent my benefit from being less than what it should. No changes have been made to stop the government from using SS as its piggy bank. This is what I consider mismanagement.

Originally posted by joepistole

I did not state the government should invest in equities.

I actually attached a chart directly from the CBO that broke it down. Minus the exise tax on premium plans and predicted penalties, the cost is still 1.252 Trillion. The CBO expects to offset these costs by reforming medicare: things like preventing fraud, administration costs, etc.... What is ludicrious about this logic is that such cuts can be made without the major provisions of ObamaCare. Cutting Medicare and making it more efficient has NOTHING to do with adding millions of people to a government subsidised insurance plan. The costs are the costs; the OBC should not include other cost savings to make it look like it is not an expense. Secondly, I am many others, doubt that as the cost of health care increases, employers will not be tempted to drop their sponsored plans, causing a greater number of people to sign up to the government version. This is because the law does nothing to actually cut the expense of healthcare, which is a must.

Thank you for posting a link showing the exact information I just gave, but in a graph. If you look at the data, the tax cuts, when first issued, dropped to the 16-17% range but then returned to the normal 18% range (18.2% was the average since 1965). Of course, when the economy tanked, so will receipts. The rate before the tax cuts (between 19-20% of GDP), was on the high side. Projections are projections, but you will see that more than likely, the GDP will return to the norm without increasing taxes.
That being said, I am not against a tax increase, as long as significant changes are made to Medicare and Social Security that cut the budget.

Actually, the whole Buffett thing was the point of this thread. Also, an Obama aid, Jason Furman, just recently stated that the Buffett rule "was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control". when confronted with the fact that it would only generate 5 billion in revenue a year. Why is Obama spending so much time and energy on it then? Could it be he is pandering to the electorate, because he thinks that is what they want to hear (yes, I did suggest what Obama is thinking)? This whole thing is a political stunt, and Buffett should know better than to join in.

I am not sure it is even in the best interests of the American people. Socialized medicine is better for those who would not otherwise have insurance. I do not believe it is better for those who already have private insurance. Socialized medicine certainly has its negatives, and this many times includes long waits for simple procedures (as my wife from Europe can attest to). I do believe in American exceptionalism when it comes to its citizens. I do not, currently, believe that of its bloated government.

There are countless articles and studies regarding the rationing of medicine, but we have already gone far away from the original topic, so I refuse to go there.

My point is that the only reason the unemployment is down is because there are less people in the workforce (as an example, 1.6 million people "stopped looking" in January, which was the reason for the drop in percentage). If you look at other recoveries after other recessions, the workforce actually grows as the rate drops. I am not suggesting that Obama is secretly changing the numbers, just manipulating the truth. The truth is that unemployment has not improved, if you actually understand where the numbers come from, which you obviously do not.

Originally posted by joepistole
But I bet you voted for him not once but twice.

For the record, I voted against him twice. I have also voted for Clinton twice, and for McCain in the last election.

You have used this phrase four times in the last post alone. It must excite you like the "fair" thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No it is more than one word or one occasion. You said you knew what Buffett was thinking repeatedly. And clearly you cannot know what is going on inside Mr. Buffett's head. When you make those statements at best you are projecting your own thinking/issues on to Mr. Buffett.

There you go again, claiming you know what Mr. Buffett is thinking and what he will do or not do. You don't know that donating the difference will go a long way towards making a point either. I suspect it would do nothing of consequence. That is why people like you are advocating same.

Populist rhetoric is what all politicians do. So if you think Mr. Obama is the only one preaching rhetoric his supporters want to hear, I have a couple of bridges I want to sell to you. I don't suppose you are familiar with a guy named Romney who's position on issues varies daily depending on who he is speaking to?

How do you know you will only receive 78% of your promised benefit? Just what is your “promised benefit” any way? I am looking for you to support your claims with data. That is the issue you have been trying to avoid for several posts now. You cannot support your claims.

Two, you made the claim that privatization of Social Security and Medicare would make them more efficient. The article I provided to you demonstrated that Social Security and Medicare are more efficient than private administration would be. So you have shifted the argument to how the proceeds are invested which is a different discussion. And you have not answered the questions I have previously put to you. Private investment is not without risks either. And I repeat, do you want government owning huge chunks of equity in private firm? Do you want the government running GE, Ford, et al.?

Three Social Security and Medicare have always been pay as you go systems – meaning the trust fund is just an accounting gimmick. We as a society have decided that we will care for our elders. We won't let them die in the streets. I think that is a good thing. Back in the old days, the elderly were totally dependent on their families for their support.

Good then you should be able to provide some evidence.

Good if you can prove it, please do so.

You were advocating privatization, so if not equities then what?

The bottom line here is that the Congressional Budget Office is staffed with professionals who know what the hell they are doing. And they are non partisan, they are the gold standard. They are extremely conservative in their projections. The fact that you and others cannot beat up their numbers and their numbers don't say what you want them to say, it does not mean that they are wrong. And the CBO projects Obamacare will save over a trillion dollars. And that is a good thing, and that does not include all of the operational efficiencies gained through automation. Automation has been a major cost saver in private industry and there is no reason to think that it won't yield similar results in healthcare. Your claim that Obamacare does nothing to reduce healthcare costs reflects a great lack of knowledge of the law. Obamacare for the first time in American medicine creates a body to learn what practices work and which don't. It's called establishing best practices – something private industry has done for decades. And all that was left out of the CBO estimates. And all of it cost savers.

I think you need to go back and reread my material. The Bush II tax cuts were a major contributor to our deficit and debt troubles. Their expiration will go long way in restoring fiscal sanity in Washington.

And Republicans don't pull stunts? If you believe that I have some bridges I want to sell you. Obama is trying to get everyone to contribute to getting the nation back on a sane fiscal path. But it won't happen over night. The problem didn't occur over night.. And unfortunately it will not be solved overnight. But that is not a reason to do nothing.

Just what is socialized medicine in your view? Does Germany have socialized medicine, France, Taiwan, Canada, Sweden? Those countries have single payer systems similar to Medicare – not socialized medicine as traditionally defined (e.g. Great Britain).

And here is the deal, by any measure other industrial countries have better outcomes and healthcare costs half of what it costs in The United States.

There have been countless industry and Republican/Tea Party fear mongering with respect to rationing of medicine but none of it based on rational discourse. I suspect that is why you don't want to provide any detail.

ROLING ON THE FLOOR IN LAUGHTER.

I suppose that is why the stock markets have doubled from their lows in 2009?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suppose reducing the unemployment rate by more than 20 percent is not a good thing – you are living in another reality my friend, a reality where up is down.

In your reality, just how is President Obama manipulating the truth? The fact is you are just repeating misinformation you have heard from folks like limbaugh, hannity, et al.

Let me clue you in on the unemployment numbers. There are two surveys one of individuals and one of employers. Both surveys indicate there has been a substantial, consistent and prolonged improvement in the labor markets since the lows of 2009. I think you have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and/or Fox News. Tell me are you one of limbaugh's (a dropout) 2 minute MBAs? As previously pointed out to you, these unemployment numbers used by professionals every day. And they don't share your opinion that President Obama is somehow manipulating them. That is right wing nut case conspiracy theory gone amuck. There is no way President Obama can manipulate these numbers without drawing attention and being debunked in the credible media (that excludes limbaugh, hannity, et al).

Well we have to take your word for that. But I don't find that consistent with your posts.

Yes I do like feeding your words back to you. And there you go again projecting your issues on to others. Now please show me where I have demonstrated excitement over the “fair” thing. You cann't. You repeatedly bring up the word and try to attach it to me as a subsitute for cogent argument and evidence.

 

I made sure I purposely threw it in this time. For whatever reason, it really seems to irk you.

It is pretty much simple logic that in order to make a point of doing something, and asking others to do so, you first do it yourself. Perhaps you would like to argue if the sky is blue, as well?

I am glad you finally agree that what Obama states is populist rhetoric. As for Romney, he is not the current president, and we are not even discussing him.

Directly from the horses mouth.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

If you do not want to read through it, it is under the section "What Are Key Dates in Long-Range OASI, DI, and HI Financing? Are you going to continue to argue this when SS themselves states there is a shortfall?

Um...No. I never said to privatize either at any point. I said that the government has made a mess of them, which they have. This was related back to the point that it is a serious mistake to continue to increase government revenue without serious cuts to the budget.

I have not shifted the argument, you were the one who introduced an article mentioning privitization in order to show me that Social Security is efficient by means of administrative costs. My argument was not over the problems with administration costs, which I have already stated for the third time, is a minor cost. The problems I stated with Social Security were specifically related to the fact that the trust is completely invested in Treasury bonds and that it will not pay its full benefits by 2035. Again, I have made no argument to privatize either Medicare or SS. I mentioned these two problems before you introduced the article from Cato. And again I will state the following: Administrative costs are an ant hill compared to the mountain of problems regarding SS solvency and investments.

No I have not, and there are a plethora of investment options besides equities. The simplest one is investing in the debt of other responsible governments, thereby spreading risk. This, however, is just the tip of the iceberg regarding conservative investments.

Your opinion of the CBO is heartwarming, but it is not an answer to my logical points. Do you agree that cost savings to Medicare can be accomplished without the individual mandate and government subsidized insurance? These are the two most controversial and expensive parts of ObamaCare. You mentioned automation, but again, this can be accomplished without the mandate and government insurance. The OBC is looking at the fiscal impact of the entire law, but no one is asking to reverse concepts like automation and Medicare cost cutting. As a matter of fact, these ideas have been entertained long before ObamaCare. The OBC has clearly stated the cost for insurance coverage and the mandate is over 1.2 trillion. If we drop them, we could still make changes to Medicare (whatever the savings), and also save the 1.2 Trillion. The OBC makes the distinction in the report between costs and savings; Obama is the one who is trying to put them together in order to justify his most expensive elements. It is like saying my $300 dollar car payment no longer exists because I just saved $400 dollars on a mortgage refinance; there is no relationship between the two. I could have never bought the car and saved a total of $700. If Obama agreed to drop the individual mandate and government insurance, no doubt he would have the support of both the Republicans and the Supreme Court. That has nothing to do with the quality of the OBC numbers, I just dug into them and learned the truth.

I have come to the conclusion that either you do not carefully read major points or you simply ignore them. If you look at the tax receipts to GDP, again you can see that they are around the 18% average since 1965 (I already have stated this). Before the tax cuts, the receipts were above the average (around 20%). The receipts only dropped due to a monstrous recession. Logically, one can assume that the tax receipts, which are at a historical average when not in recession, are not the reason for the massive debt. It is, therefore, a SPENDING issue. If the spending is not addressed, the tax receipt point will be moot. I have agreed that we can raise taxes if and only if major cuts are made to the largest costs: Medicare, Social Security, and Defense (interest on debt moving up). Defense is already being cut, but Medicare is out of control. Respond to my numbers which are clear, do not give some vague response about your "material".

It is not a reason to do nothing, but obviously saving 5 billion should not be a priority. Obama has certainly made this a priority, and his reasons are obviously only political. This, however, is typical Obama. Dedicate enormous amounts of time to politics, and not solutions.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Above includes a chart about labor participation. Unless you are blind, you can see the massive drop since 2008. Simple math, are you ready? If you have less people in the workforce looking for jobs, your rate will drop without actually increasing employment. Even creating 250K in jobs a month will barely cover the increase in the size of workforce due to population growth. The 200K numbers have just started to show up this year. How then, rationally, do you believe that the rate has dropped without a drop in total workforce numbers? You can keep doing your ridiculous ROFL, but you appear not to be able to understand simple math.

I thought I was the one with ESP? I in know way listen to fat morons like Limbaugh and fools like Hannity. I am politically moderate. I have certainly made the conclusion, however, that you lean far to the left. This is obvious, and I would be suprised if you even argue the point. You make the statement that my points are from the likes of Limbaugh, yet my sources listed above are government. Argue those points please.

 

You keep saying you know what other people are thinking, not me. Now if that does not strike you as illogical, that explains a lot.

You don't seem able to understand that Buffett has never advocated wealthy individuals donate money to the federal government. But you won't let that stop you. Buffett has advocated wealthy individuals should pay at least what the average Joe or Jane pays as a percent of their income in tax. There is a difference.

Finally? It must be that alternate reality. Every politician caters to his/her base. There is nothing new nor is it unique to one party. Consistency is something you see with President Obama, but lacking in Romney – something you would prefer to ignore.

Show me where it said you were going to get 78% of what you put into the program as you claimed in your post. It doesn't. You were caught making stuff up again.

What it does say is that the current set up is not sustainable. And this is not the first time the trustees have said that. The last time was under Ronald Reagan. And they fixed it. There are a number of fixes that can be enacted to fix the funding issues. Social Security and Medicare must be modified, but that does not mean that you will bet 78 percent of what you put into the program. Additionally, the program was never intended to be a guaranteed investment. It was set up as an insurance program.

Yes you did. I suggest you go back and read your posts.

More revisionism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I showed the data showing private enterprise would not be more efficient in managing the program as you seem to think.

You mean like Greece? Investing in bonds of other countries is not going to make much difference nor is it a guarantee of safety.

NO. Social Security is a minor issue. It can be easily fixed by raising the taxable income cap. I think the Social Security taxable income cap should be eliminated.

Medicare survival is dependent on our ability to fix our grossly inefficient and ever increasing ineffective healthcare system. Our fellow industrial countries realized that fact and fixed their healthcare systems decades ago.

The current system allows individuals to free ride the system. They get emergency room care and hospital care free. It is required by law. You cannot fix the healthcare system unless and until you get everyone using the system to pay into the system – else fewer and fewer people will be able to afford healthcare or you can let hospitals and emergency personnel require people to prove they can pay before services are rendered. I feel sorry for the Joe or Jane that leaves the house with out proof of ability to pay should they need medical care if that is the route you want to go.

Then why has it happened everywhere else in the world and in private industry with the exception of US healthcare? Can you say oligopoly?

Not important, it hasn't happened and wi th Obamacare it will (if not overturned by the supremes).

I have no clue as to what point you are trying to make. But the bottom line here is that the Congressional Budget Office has projected Obamacare will save the nation over a trillion dollars. The CBO compares pre-Obamacare with post Obamacare. And it makes no allowances for the improvements in operational efficiencies (best practices, automation, etc.).

Ps You mean CBO?

No I don't ignore you points when I can understand them. One, taxes are at record lows. That is a fact. You just don't like it. And proof has been provided. You just don't like what the number say. Tax receipts as a percent of GDP are running at 15 percent. You claim that is because of The Great Recession GDP shrank. Do you know how much the GDP shrank in 2009? About 400 billion, in a 14 trillion dollar economy, that does not explain the difference. The reason tax rates are so low is because of the Bush tax cuts. Coincidentally when those tax cuts expire, tax revenues go up to more normal levels.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Two, our tax rates have varied considerably depending on economic and political circumstance. The facts are the Bush II tax cuts failed and have contributed significantly to our debt. It is getting close to the time when we need to pay the piper. We need to pay for the financial irresponsibility of the George II administration. That means higher tax rates, higher than historical averages as our debt is higher.

We need to keep the economy growing. That is the number one priority. That mean stimulus as needed. Because a shrinking economy decreases government revenues and increases government expenditures – a double whammy.

It is not a SPENDING ISSUE. It is a fiscal responsibility issue. That means raising revenue and responsible spending – not like the spending we saw under the George II and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney administration.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. It sounds like more limbaugh talking points.

Well you are at least citing a bls table an moving away from the Obama conspiracy theory. But now you need to understand what is being surveyed. To be unemployed, it means you are unemployed and looking for work. And that is a good definition. It is the same definition of unemployed that has been used for decades. And those numbers indicate unemployment is down 20 percent from its zenith in 2009. The current unemployment rate is 8 percent. By the way, a healthy unemployment rate is about 5 percent. We call that the residual unemployment rate.

What you are advocating is throwing in folks who are not looking for employment into the unemployment numbers. Using that methodology; all the folks in nursing homes; retired folks; and all the kids in schools would be considered unemployed. And that would be wrong.

I am glad you think you know math. But this is more than knowing math. It is the ability to make logical comparisons and know what is being measured. You are trying to compare apples to horses. So it is kind of laughable when you claim someone else doesn't know what they are talking about with respect to these numbers. There are a variety of reasons why labor force participation rates have and will continue to go down. The biggest reason is people like me, baby boomer who are retiring.

So with respect to your claims that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers is just bunk. You are just repeating Fox nonsense/conservative talking points for the ditto head crowd and represents a profound ignorance of the labor statistics and how they are compiled. One final point here, the economy has been adding consistently between 100k and 200k private sector jobs consistently since 2009. Those are all good numbers.

I know people who like to claim they are not Republican/Tea Party but repeat the Republican Party line verbatim. I don't care what you want to call yourself. The bottom line here is that you are mimicking Republican/Tea Party party line.

 

Again, this would pretty much be the point of debating in a political forum, so if you think otherwise, that says a lot to me.

You are stuck on semantics once again. It is not a donation to give money that he thinks the wealthy should be paying to the government (specifically 30%) even if the law has not been enacted to make a point. If he truly believes in it, he can do it. It is that simple.

Not to the extent that Obama does. A good example of this was back in the fall before the failure of the supercomittee. Rather than even attempt to get the group together, Obama was already going across the country blaming the Republicans before it even officially failed. This was a complete lack of leadership; from both him and Boehner. Both had the opportunity as party leaders to get something done and neither did. Both need to go.

Are you actually serious? I gave you the header were it is located, all you needed to do was look. Since you refuse, I have pulled it for you.

Actually, it is worse; only 77% of scheduled benefits will be covered. Do you see it now? In all of the posts I have made, I have yet to have someone not acknowledge something that was presented so clearly. I imagine you will still try to argue this point in an incoherent manner.

And I have four times stated now that administrative costs are not the issue with Social Security. It is not hard to remove funds from payrolls and place them in Treasury Bonds. This, by nature, has a low cost. The problem is the mismanagement of the surplus and the fact the current funds will meet only three fourths of scheduled payments.

There are many countries in the world with less debt issues and a better credit rating than the United States? Do you agree?

Increasing age, or increasing the tax seem to be easy solutions but this insolvency issue is nothing new. As you just saw in January, both the Republicans and Democrats have actually kept the tax lower, rather than letting it go back up with no means to pay for the gap. The longer they wait, the larger the increase or the higher the age will be necessary. Politicians have no fortitude to do the right thing, and this is why government run programs face insolvency. Keep in mind that this all works if the 2.6 trillion in the fund is payed back. If the government cannot pay back that debt, which is a realistic possibility, the problem gets much worse.

I agree, we will pay for the poors care one way or another. However, adding more people into the insurance system will not cover the ever increasing cost of medical care. This is naive to believe. Adding people to the system does not fix the problem that the cost of treating those people continues to get higher and higher. The point is that we simply cannot afford to pay for all of these people, whether we want to or not, when we have a 15 trillion dollar deficit, unless we find a way to significantly cut medical costs. These debts will turn us into Greece in ten years, guaranteed. I do not think you realize the urgency. Since our debt is already so large, options become that much more difficult. Obama's law has only minor fixes to Medicare rather than a major change that is required.

How do you explain that receipts were at 18% before the crash, which is the historical average? The Heritage foundation is predicting that already in 2011, receipts will return to historical average, without an increase in taxes. I am not arguing that receipts will not rise if the Bush cuts expire, I am saying they will already be at historical norms if we do not make any changes. It is in the numbers, including the Heritage.org site you posted yourself.

.

If ridiculous amounts of money were not spent, we would not have 15 trillion in debt. That simple. Revenue has remained consitent, except a few blips, since 1965, yet we have a monstrous debt. Only a liberal could not put the two together. How can that NOT be a spending issue. I already told you, I AGREE Bush was the problem, so I am not sure why you continue to bring it up. I believe that Obama continues this problem.

If you could not understand those few simple sentences, then you need a reading comprehension course. 5 billion in cuts can be made in a thousand different ways, and should not be a president's main talking point. The fact that they are shows he is only concerned about politics. It is a political strategy, not a true cost cutting measure.

I agree unemployed means looking for work....very good.

Agreed, it is the same that has been used for decades. The problem is that the unemployed, those looking for work, has NOT dropped because they found work, they just GAVE UP. 7 million more have joined the workforce and cannot find jobs, due to population growth. It means they are not earning income, and do not pay taxes. Those people did not move out of the country, they are simply not being included in the "rate". If your participation rate in the workforce takes such a dramatic drop, it means there is a huge issue. The rate is not telling the whole story. Those millions who are not considered part of the "workforce" still exist, they did not disappear. 63% participation rate is extremely low. Do you really believe they do not want a job? You get it now?

No, the retired and kids were NEVER included in the workforce. The participation rate factors all of that in. Explain to me why the participation rate has dropped so dramatically, and how that is not a problem to you? Because they are not included in your "rate", they no longer exist? They are not participating, because they took a long vacation? THERE ARE NO JOBS FOR THEM!!

It requires 150K in job growth just to cover the new people coming into the job market. When you have such a high unemployment problem, those are not good numbers. The participation rate testifies to the problem. Obama, and most people across the political spectrum for that matter, never dig in to why unemployment is such a problem. As an example, the 500 companies S&P 500 are actually hiring people....but only one-third of them are in the United States. Many of the jobs lost in the recession were service jobs that were created because people were spending money by using credit (two-thirds of the U.S. economy is spending). When people stopped spending, the jobs were lost. The people never really had the money to begin with, they were just using the equity in their homes that grew every year. Nobody asks whey they never had the money in the first place (quality of jobs). This is the issue.

I have continued to critique presidents and politicians across both parties throughout this conversation. You cannot even consider Obama's faults. I have used government sites to support my conclusions: I do not listen to right wing radio (I would not have the time if I wanted to). If this debt growth, over trillion a year, continues, we will be in a huge mess in a decade. Taxing the rich is not going to be a solution. Conservatively raising revenue and major cuts to spending is the only way to solve the crisis. It is a crisis, a scary one.

 

So you believe in ESP. Unless you have ESP you cannot know what other people are thinking or will do. You can make guesses, but you cannot know as you have claimed. A guess is not knowing. There is a diference.

There is a difference between advocating for donations and taxes. They are not the same. I suggest you look up their meanings in the dictionary. In order for your analogy to have merit, the words have to be synonymous and they are not and no amount of obfuscation is going to change that.

What the hell are you talking about? Some evidence would be good.

You seem to be a victim of that fuzzy logic you like to talk about. Nowhere in that material did it say anything about you only getting 78% back of what you contributed into the program, which was your original claim. It is an insurance program, and since you cannot know when you will start using it or what you will be using; or how long you will be using it; you cannot make the claim you made. It is just that simple. There are many folks who will only get the death benefit because they will not live long enough to start collecting the other benefits and have no dependent children.

A good argument starts with a clearly defined issue. You don't have one. The fact that Social Security and Medicare will need changes for them to maintain financial integrity in the distant future is a given. And the fact that these programs need funding changes, does not mean that you will get only 78% of what you contributed into the program as you claimed. So just what is it you want to argue?

Yes I have noticed you infatuation with repeating yourself mindlessly. You have conceded the administration cost issue. So why are you repeating it? Government can and has managed the fund better than what it would had it been farmed out to private industry.

The surplus was invested in US Treasury obligations which are widely regarded as the most secure investment in the world. That is why interest rates are so low on US Treasury obligations. You have suggested that the money be invested in alternative investment – first in equities and now in obligations/debt of other nations. And I pointed out to you, that bears risk as well – more risk in fact (e.g. Greece, Spain,, Italy, etc.). US Treasuries are the most secure, that is why investors are willing to invest in them even with negative real interest rates.

No, and neither do investors in the bond markets. If you want to argue this, I suggest you do some research and provide some evidence and a coherent argument. But you won't find it.

Well they are not easy solutions, if they were they would have done it. Democrats agreed to extend the George II tax cuts in order to get an extension of the payroll tax deduction and a small business stimulus package necessary for the recovery. As I said many times before the single best thing the government can do to fix our financial and debt woe is to grow the economy.

Unfortunately some politicians don't have the guts to do the right thing, and citizens are not well informed leading them to cast some very poor votes. Democrats are trying. Republicans would rather play politics, and unfortunately I don't see anyone on the Republican side who can exhibit the leadership necessary to bring the party back to the rational center and put the good of the nation above political ambition and the likes of limbaugh, hannity, levin, et al.. Obama and the Democrats have offered serious concessions to Republicans only to be rebuffed repeatedly for the sake of political ambition.

We will handle the poor, we already do. You seem to be missing the point. Let me repeat myself, we are supporting the free riders – those people who are employed and have some wealth but not enough wealth to pay for healthcare. And as the expense of healthcare grows - now almost 20% of the GDP - the number of free riders will continue to grow and healthcare costs will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate.

The historical solution has been to shift the cost of heatlhcare from individuals to government. That works well for the American healthcare industry, but not so much for everyone else. The healthcare industry needs intervention. We need to a single payer system. We need everyone to contribute, to pay what they can afford. And we need to bust up the oligopolies that run this segement of the economy to make the industry more competitive and better serve our needs. Obamacare is a first step.

The good news, in some respects, is that our industrial trading partners have already been there and done that. We have models, models that work. models that have been proven.

What you continue to fail to understand is that these people are already part of the “system” - like it or not. We can continue to treat them inefficiently and ineffectively and continue to let them ride the system without any personal cost or we can treat them more efficiently and effectively and have them pay a portion of the cost of their care or we can require proof of ability to pay before healthcare services are rendered and let people die if they cannot afford healthcare. Those are the the decisions before us.

What you don't understand is we cannot afford not to reform healthcare. Two, we will not turn into Greece no matter what happens to our debt. Because we have the ability to print money and control our debt. Greece when it joined the European Union surrendered that ability. Three, our debt is not 15 trillion. It is a fraction of that amount. Because a good portion of the national debt is debt the country owes to itself - not really debt but an accounting artifact.

Good I am glad you concede George II was the problem. The point I have been trying to make with you is that growing the economy is the best way to solve the nation's debt ills for all the reasons previously stated. Getting our financial house in order is more than just cutting spending. It is acting responsibly. It is responsible spending – something we did not see in the 8 years of the George II administration. And contrary to all the Republican hype, President Obama is not a miracle worker. He has no magic wand. And as previously stated, Obama's spending has been largely on stimulus – fending off another Great Recession. Like it or not that requires responsible spending. Our debt problem is long term, not near term. We need a long term solution. That does not mean we stop making investments in ourselves and making our nation more competitive.

I understand what you are writing. What you don't understand is the situation we face is far more complex than you seem to understand or are willing to understand. And let me repeat myself one more time, what is needed is responsible fiscal management. Obama is for the first time in 8 years being responsible with the nation's finances despite stiff Republican opposition.

Great.

First, how is it you know that all these people who dropped out of the workforce did so because they were discouraged? And if you were unemployed and needed money to pay the rent and put food on the table, would you just give up, starve and live on the streets because you wanted to express a temper tantrum? And just what are these people doing that have dropped out of the work force?

Here is reality, those folks who drop out of the work force go back to school; get retrained; or have other sources of income and don't need to work. And as I mentioned before, a lot of baby boomers are dropping out of the workforce. They are retiring.

I never said retired people were included in the workforce. I said your claim that the unemployment numbers were being manipulated by President Obama because they didn't account for people who had dropped out of the labor force was bogus.

The labor force equals the employed and those who are unemployed. It does not include those you are not seeking employment. And the only way you can have your way is if you included those folks who have dropped out of the labor force (retirees, students, nursing home patients, etc.).

No one is saying that because people drop out of the labor force, they no longer exist. But I am saying they should not be included in the labor force if they are not participating in the labor force. That is why they are not included in the BLS unemployment numbers.

And the unpleasant fact for you is that the employment situation has improved signficantly since President Obama took office. We are no longer loosing nearly a million jobs a month. And the jobs numbers have been getting better month after month. And that is in no small part why the stock market has doubled in the years since 2009.

Oh, then prove it and prove that is is a problem. You are just repeating Republican/Tea Party talking points. A shrinking labor participation rate runs counter to your claim that 150k new jobs are required to keep pace with new entrants into the market place. A shrinking labor participation rate suggests that you have fewer and fewer participants in the labor market.

Well if that is the issue, then you should be able to prove it. I look forward to seeing this proof. - proof from credible sources now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No you have been pretty one sided in your criticism and there is more than right wing radio that spews conservative crap all day long – assuming you are telling the truth. Two, no one is saying the debt is not a problem. What is being said, is that the nations fiscal ills must be solved rationally and responsibly. The solution is more than just blind cost cutting. It is more than just blindly raising taxes. And the solution doesn't fit neatly into a sound byte (e.g. doing things more efficiently/Obamacare), and unfortunately most Americans are clueless when it comes to finance, business and current affairs. So they are vulnerable to deception and fear mongering. Thus it is much easier for leaders who are in a quest for power to demagogue, fear monger, and offer simple ineffective solutions than it is to act responsibly and in the interest of the nation. Obama and the Democrats are in power now. So they cannot afford the luxury of demagoguery. People are looking to them for real results. And Obama in his three years in office has delivered. We can ask if he could have done better. Perhaps he could have, and then perhaps not. The good news he and his Democrat have made great progress against great odds. It took more than a decade and a world war to pull out of The Great Depression. Considering where we could have been without the actions taken by the George II administration in its last few months in office and the Obama administration followup actions, we should be thanking out lucky stars.

 

Yes, let's go for the repulican end game and lower taxes to 0, that way the corperations that they head can rule over the ashes of our country.

Its funny, ask anyone if they like roads, running water, and a standing army and they are all about it. Ask them if they want to pay for it and they get all pissed and start talking about how your taking all their money. You can't have it both ways.