Lets go over the cliff

General Discussion
101

Kevin…Medicare too. Medicare is a pay - go system and any adjustments on the age of collecting upward would increase the amount that those still left would have to pay or cut benefits substantially.

Raising the age to 67 for example takes the healthiest seniors out of Medicare, makes it impossible to retire at age 65 with Sovial Security and pay full private insurance. Both would be affected and all retirees would loose benefits. Privatizing both, even at lower ages would have the same effect.

Expanding Medicare or social security has the opposite effect as any single payer, non profit pay- go system would. And yet, these options are still promoted by conservatives that seniors vote for. We Seniors just loose our ability to add as we get older I guess.

Let’s just not get sick but die early perhaps at the hands of all the guns provided by these conservatives in congress. Liberals in Congress are spineless weeners and actually negotiate doing these things as part of a debt reduction package.

I remind my dumb “A” conservative fellow golf club owners and retired members, that their clubs could close if either were tinkered with much. Social security checks in part are use to support most golf courses. Social Security goes right back into the economy !

102

" I remind my dumb “A” conservative fellow golf club owners . . . "

Nice talk !

CSA

103

The Problem With Ponzi Schemes Like Social Security And Medicare Is That They Work Well With A Rapidly Growing Population. When That Growth Slows And The Population Slowly Becomes An Aging Population Then The Things Are Unsustainable Without Very Large Contribution Increases.

We’re changing from a growing population of mostly younger citizens to a population of an expanding percentage of aging citizens. Then the government gives a payroll take break when they should be increasing the payroll tax, speeding the ultimate collapse of these entitlements.

. . . Younger people are beginning to rightly believe that these entitlements will probably not be around by the time they can tap into them. They are beginning to question paying into them and soon things will evolve to a point that these ponzi schemes will self-destruct (remember - unsustainable). I have two of them, one living in my house. They are wisely planning their own funding of their retirement years and I get the idea that they don’t want to pay for theirs and mine, too.

They’re conservatives, but not the dumb “A” type.

CSA

104

Higher individual taxes, greater individual healthcare expenses, and increased business taxes and required expenses, will be permanent. It won’t be an adjustment, but rather a drop in discretionary income. Piled on top of an already struggling economy, I don;t see how it can possiby result in a gradual upside.

If we continue on our chosen path, we’ll be facing a $25 trillion dollar deficit, a military reduced 50%, significantly higher individual costs in taxes, healthcare, and retail prices, and significantly reduced business activity in the areas of hiring and growth due to higher costs. We cannot fix the problem by spending more and taxing more. No economy ever has. No economy ever will.

105

@samemountainbike

Just remember this though, the deficit has nothing to do with the entitlements the republicans want to cut to make a deal !

The turn coat democrats are considering making cuts in benefits to SS to go along with the screw the middle class republicans in the deficit reduction deal. Why ?

Because the Social Security trust fund is well in the black and is raided by both parties ( except Johnson and Clinton) and both parties find it a quick and easy way to decrease the budget deficit. Keep the payments the same but cut the benefits so they can both steal more money out.

Does anyone know or care what the heck is happening ? Social trust fund pays Down the deficit as it collects more then it pays out and is not counted in the deficit like it should be. SS pay roll tax is becoming a sur tax on the middle class.

Do any of you retirees and future retirees get how we are being skrewed by both parties.!!!

106

The economy is becoming a corpocracy and as it moves in that direction it will be more and more apparent that a culture of haves and have nots is evolving. Far too many in the middle look down with disdain at those “lazy” people at the bottom and blame them for the current recession but as the corpocracy grows more and more will recognize that a government run by greedy titans is as poor as one run by socialist do gooders. A few wealthy men should not have the opportunity to shuffle the digits on a screen in such a way as to make more money in one days trading from an ocean tanker of oil than the hundreds of workers who drilled and pumped that oil out of the ground in a year of back breaking labor.

107

It’s Definitely A Spending Problem. Also, Everybody Has To Be Required To Pay Federal Taxes. The Number Of People Paying Taxes Is Decreasing, While Their Taxes Are Increasing.

It is puzzling why government services should have a different value for citizens based on their incomes.

I read an interesting article about progressive tax rates. It contends that government is basically a provider of services - legal system, defense, transportation, schools, etcetera. People need the services and are willing to pay for them as they are willing to pay for them in the private sector, but in the private business sector people don’t pay different prices for the same things. One’s income isn’t used to determine what what pays for a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk.

Only in our government services do people pay different prices for the same things. 47% pay nothing for their government provided services and some even get money back, too. The article goes on to illustrate how progressive rates would apply to purchasing a gallon of milk instead of our current system that charges everybody $2.49 (or going price). Top earners (1%) who require less government services would pay $109.81/gallon, some would pay $2.49, and some people would get their’s for free and maybe some change back.

Think about that the next time somebody talks about tax fairness.

CSA

108

IMHO many government programs SHOULD be “means-based”. Social Securty, Medicare, Medicaid, these should be means-based. SS was designed as a “safety net”. In my mind it’s insane for someone with a six or seven figure pension to get SS. The same with programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Free market goods and services are simply demand & supply based…as long as the government stay out of the market. Housing financing used to be demand and supply (and risk) based until the feds “fixed” the industry. It’s been a disaster ever since.

109

FICA taxes are paid on every penny of wages and salaries up to $110,000, CSA. And FICA taxes are 44% of the total IRS tax levy. How does that fit with the 47% paying no tax? The smoke and mirrors of partisan politics and Fox Nooooz is amazingly successful in keeping us confused.

110

Fox News is no more biased in its reporting than NBC, ABC, and CBS.

111

As I Said, " . . . services - legal system, defense, transportation, schools, etcetera. "

These are some of the government services that some pay dearly for and others get them for free because of an out of whack tax system.

What does Fox Nooooz have to do with anything ? Why does that always seem to enter a conversation about out of control government spending and an unfair progressive tax system ?

CSA

112

It is quite apparent that Rupert Murdoch has built his network to be the mouthpiece for Wall St interests. There is virtually no objective news reporting there. The phrase “We report, you decide” is so outrageous as to be laughable. How can any discussion of the current political condition not include criticism of the “Ministry of Trooth?”

113

“Fox News is no more biased in its reporting than NBC, ABC, abd CBS.”

I must disagree with you. Fox News as a network is highly biased, just as MSNBC is. I can’t stand listening for more than a few minutes to most of the prime time “news” shows. Sure, they present news, and then provide their own views in a most inciteful way.

I put money into Social Security for almost 40 years now with the promise that I would get full benefits at 65 or older. I am nearing that level now. I don’t mind delaying it a couple of years because people live longer than when the rules were set. But I do expect to get what I earned, and also expect to have Medicare. I realize that I will still pay a lot for medical benefits even with Medicare. I also understand that I will not get end of life hospice care, and I have an insurance policy that will pay for this.

114

Very good comments all! The long and the short, however is that you can’t live beyond your income for very long.

Whatever happens, government must cut back on non-essential services, greatly reduced military commitments, and higher taxes for most. Once the budget is balanced we can start to pay down the debt.

If you think the US is in a bind, look at Japan. Their debt is staggering, the population is not only aging, but also dropping!! Japan’s population is forecast to drop from over 120 million to 90 million in the next 30 years.Very few Japanese workers will have to support a very large aging population, and also service the debt, let alone pay it off.

How they got in such a fix is a strange combination of events. It started off in 1945 with General McArthur having 6 young Americans draft a constitution for Japan which gave full equality to women.The result was many Japanese women becoming fully emancipated, having careers, and deciding in many cases not to have children, or not even get married. The Japanese culture of not accepting foreigners as equals and no immigration, further slowed the potential size of the economy.

Also, during the Asian meltdown in the 90s, the Japanese did not allow many bank failures, so many to this day carry very bad loans on their books. To stimulate the economy over the last 10-15 years, more and more government money was injected into the economy, such as later done after 2007 by the US government. Japanese public debt is now 190% of GDP, one of the highest in the world. And this is a debt in a country where there is little government social security. Japan still has a very strong manufacturing sector but more and more of its excellent products are made in China and other countries with large labor pools.

Many European countries are in the same fix, slowing or dropping population, aging citizens, and huge debts.

The US is heading the same way as Japan, and the population growth is the only positive factor; all these new citizens will be paying off the debt. Don’t tell all those Latinos and Asians that they will have to pay for all this reckless goverment spending!

115

“Fox News is no more biased in its reporting than NBC, ABC, abd CBS.”

I also have to disagree with you, mountainbike.
Based on my viewing of both Fox News and MSNBC, I wouldn’t give you 5 cents for the so-called “objectivity” of either network. While they are of opposite political extremes, I don’t like “talking heads” preaching to me, and that is exactly what both of those networks do–on a constant basis. I find the inherent biases of both networks to be…almost nauseating at times.

On the other hand, I do believe that the 3 major networks are reasonably balanced in their reporting.

What should really concern you if you get most of your information from Fox News is that multiple studies over a period of about 5 years have indicated that Fox News viewers are the least well-informed folks out there, and–in fact–many Fox viewers knew less about national and world events than people who watched no news at all!

Take a look at these 3 articles, and please note that one of them is from Forbes Magazine–which is itself very conservative:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

http://www.examiner.com/article/surprise-surpise-study-shows-fox-news-viewers-are-the-least-informed

Personally, I like to get my news from The BBC!

116

“Fox News is no more biased in its reporting than NBC, ABC, abd CBS.”

First, let me say that I can’t get Fox News so I don’t watch/listen, whatever. I do get all of the NBC, ABC, and CBS on the 4 over-the air channels available to me and frequently watch/listen.

The problem isn’t so much with the reporting done by those three networks. The problem is with what they don’t report on and their very, very selective news coverage.

All three networks support progressive points of view, the democrats, and run cover for the current POTUS and current Secretary of State, etcetera. Anything damaging to the likes of these people is skipped or glossed over. I do lots of reading and get most of my news that way, from multiple sources.

It sickens me to see how important news is carefully filtered by these networks and the bias that the situation creates by omission. It is not journalism. The really sad part of this for our country is that I’m afraid that many (a majority ?) of Americans get their news from these sources. They carry the water for the current out of control spending and over-regulating done by our current government.

CSA

117

I whole heartedly agree with you @CSA concerning the bias of network news.
I feel that any news channel with sponsorship they have is usually quite selective to both retain an audience and sponsorship.

That is why I tend to trust PBS news.

Now, FOX, being more interested in a target audience instead of a general…IMVHO will do just on thing…lie like a rug when the story doesn’t follow their agenda.

118

even CNN is guilty of it

119

I find NPR and BBC my most reliable for news, msnbc and Faux news last, Like Faux says, fair and balanced , then were later required by the fcc to add ‘you decide!’ (because murdoch is not dedicated to anything but the right win agenda)

120

Rightfully so, the Brady bill targeted adaptive measures to some semi auto matic weapons. These add ons make a weapon more then it must be for hunting and self defense, like shorter barrels and larger clips which make the gun easier to conceal and increase their lethality. NO ONE addresses the shear proliferation of guns. Israel, known for it’s need for self protection has well thought out laws. Check them out. People can carry a gun but must be trained, registered and certifide. Again, proliferation is controlled by registering the gun with the person like a car where the owner is responsible for it’s use and registration follows every sale.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-americans-learn-from-israeli-gun-laws/

Israelly laws represent the right for self defense but combine with it, the immense personal responsibility of owning a gun. Americas in general have laws that reflect guns should be available for any contrived reason, for any person. Being non centralized, they are watered down and prevent little. In a dangerous society, you can have it both ways.