Inequality

Fantasy Nation?
by Nicholas D. Kristof

"...I spend a fair amount of time reporting in developing countries, from Congo to Colombia. They’re typically characteri zed by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality , free-wheel ing businesses and high military expenditur es. Any of that ring a bell?

In Latin American, African or Asian countries, I sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft — but schools that have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the upshot is societies that are quasi-feud al, stratified by social class, held back by a limited sense of common purpose.

Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans already have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-i ncome families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ..."

http://www .nytimes.c om/2011/06 /05/opinio n/05kristo f.html?_r= 1

Sorry about the links, try this one for the Nation article quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/op...stof.html?_r=1

Ryan Budget

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3451

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
http://www.cbpp.org/

Ryans cowardly Budget:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3460

The answer will come in the form of both spending cuts, and tax increases, something that neither party has seriously brought to the table. Here's some food for thought though, if we raised the tax of the richest Americans to which you refer to 100% for everything they make over 200k/250k for single and married people respectively, you will NOT balance the budget. And, in reality, you will not be able to tax it anywhere near that amount. So what do you do? Well, raise taxes; I hate paying em', but it needs to be done. But most importantly, cut spending.

It's time we put our sacred cows out to slaughter. The programs which were always "untouchable" such as Medicaid, Medicare, Wellfare and Social Security. Do we do this because we hate the poor and want to see them die? No. We must do this because these programs account for nearly HALF of all spending. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to cut the programs which get the most money.

And to be fair, I am for cutting national defense as well. I am sick and tired of babysitting the whole god-damned world. Let them go fuck themselves into a useless pulp and run their nations into the ground for all that I care! Stop spending billions on bases on every corner of the planet, and let the world fend for themselves. All of this is easier said then done, or course but does anyone see any other alternative?

I would love to be able to open the shale reserves here in the U.S. giving us upward of ~3 Trillion barrels of oil, and give a huge middle finger to the middle east. Not a single country there (except maybe Israel, but I would call them a fair-weather ally at best) would lift a finger to help the U.S. if it didn't also serve their own interests.

All I know is that this course of action is unsustainable. Barack Obama has added over $4 Trillion to our debt since his time in office, and will continue to add more and more. Does anyone believe this is sustainable? If not, what would you propose to do to balance the budget, or at least arrest the complete tail spin we are in? You seem to not like Ryan's proposed cuts, so what are your thoughts?

...It's time we put our sacred cows out to slaughter. The programs which were always "untouchable" such as Medicaid, Medicare, Wellfare and Social Security... Originally Posted by Marcus78

Marcus -- I don't agree on all your points, but a hearty "Amen!" on Social Security: one reason I've refused to join AARP, which screams bloody murder every time a Congressman or Senator suggests it's time we look at the long-term viability of this program. So many retirees see it as an entitlement -- although many are not in dire need, and continue taking when they've exhausted what they put into the program. Not that I'm saying kill it -- but it is in need of a major overhaul.

Unless the government gets really serious about cutting spending...

It will all be a moot point.

I haven't heard a single Republican say that they are taking SS away from seniors. I have heard that Pelosi's Health Care debacle does take funds from seniors. What I have heard from Republicans is various sorts of phase-outs for future SS recipients. I could support something along those lines... promises were made to workers that need to be acknowledged, however I challenge you to find a reputable financial advisor that advises people to plan for their own future using SS as a primary income source.

Another question... how does Social Security differ from a Ponzi Scheme such as the one Bernie Madoff went to prison for?

I know what America needs.......MORE COWBELL! Love that avatar!

Marcus78, I'll answer you paragraph by paragraph:

1. No one is asserting that rescinding the Bush tax cuts will balance the budget. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2012 is part of the solution. Why would tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% even be an issue in this economy? Is it right to allow the Bush tax cuts to continue on the backs of Middle America? I don't think so.

The budgetary pressures that the nation will face in the decades ahead also underscore the desirability of allowing President Bush’s tax cuts to expire on schedule at the end of 2012.

The revenue loss over the next 75 years from making those tax cuts permanent would be three times the entire Social Security shortfall over that period.

Indeed, the revenue loss just from extending the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 — the top 2 percent of Americans — would itself be almost as large as the entire Social Security shortfall over the 75-year period.

2. I would not use the political term "sacred cow" when referring to Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid and Welfare.

Social Security faces no immediate crisis and will have substantial resources to pay benefits even over the long run, but it faces a long-term shortfall that Congress should address sooner rather than later so the program can meet its promises.

Specifically, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2036, at which point its combined trust funds will be exhausted. After that, Social Security will still be able to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits, relying on Social Security taxes as they are collected.

If you think of retirement as a three-legged stool (savings, pensions, Soc Sec) the latter is the strongest leg. Retirement savings have been lagging for years for many in the workforce due to stagnant wage growth, and pensions have a) shifted from guaranteed (defined benefit) to variable (defined contribution) and b) gotten whacked by bursting asset bubbles.

For recipients age 65 and up on, Social Security is about two-thirds of their income and that share grows with age—for the old-elderly, it’s closer to 70% of their income. Other data show that for a third of those over 65, Social Security accounts for at least 90% of their income.

We should keep these income shares in mind when we think about applying some combination of the fixes to the shortfall. Benefits mean a lot to most retirees and that fact should guide our solution set.

Addressing the Social Security issue should include higher payments into the program from current workers, some form of diminished benefits, or some combination.

The CBO link http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc...ons_forWeb.pdf see Tables 2-4 it shows the different ways to close the gap.

The true "sacred cows" are: Wall Street, Banks, The Military Industrial Complex, Corporate welfare and subsidies, Big Pharma, Big oil, Healthcare costs, Tax cuts for the rich and war, etc.

3. Hell Yeah! I'm on board with that!

4. Hell Yeah again!

5. Accumulated debt will show how much has been added since President Obama's inauguration, but that reflects decisions made before he got in office (TARP, auto bailouts, wars - all bush things).

It doesn't reflect solely legislation he signed.

The Bush-Reagan years presided over by far the largest increase in the debt (in terms of real purchasing power) since WWII.

Stimulus - roughly 250 billion for 3 years, of which 1/3 is tax cuts
Health reform - saves 100+ billion in the short term, over 1 trillion long term and adds 10 years to medicare.
Cuts to the military complex - 200 billion, including the F22 which doesn't help us in our current fights.

Looking at just the total debt and trying to assign it to Obama is not reflective of reality.
How many hundreds of billions are simply debt service on what he was handed (a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit).

Does anyone really believe that the new health reform will really save 100+ billion in the short term and over 1 trillion long term?

The only thing the stimulus package stimulated was higher unemployment.

Bring back Clinton and his cigars.

Gooose asks:

Does anyone really believe that the new health reform will really save 100+ billion in the short term and over 1 trillion long term?

Maverick sez: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the new health reform law will provide coverage to an additional 32 million when fully implemented in 2019 through a combination of the newly created Exchanges and the Medicaid expansion.

CBO estimates the cost of the coverage components of the new law to be $938 billion over ten years.

These costs are financed through a combination of savings from Medicare and Medicaid and new taxes and fees, including an excise tax on high-cost insurance, which CBO estimates will raise $32 billion over ten years.

CBO also estimates that the health reform law will reduce the deficit by $124 billion over ten years.

Gooose sez:

The only thing the stimulus package stimulated was higher unemployment

Maverick sez: The CBO said the stimulus package raised gross domestic product in the last quarter of 2010 by between 1.1. percent and 3.5 percent after taking into account the impact of inflation. It also helped lower the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage point and 1.9 percentage points, the CBO estimated.

Between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people were employed in the last quarter of 2010 due to the stimulus, the report said.

CBO acknowledged that it is difficult to determine the full impact on the $14 trillion U.S. economy from the 2009 stimulus. The analysis said the data it gathered on the impact of the law provides only limited information because "isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in absence of the law."


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/23/cbo-stimulus-package-boosted-employment/#ixzz1OZXDCd8m[/IMG][QUOTE=gooose;1361815]

Bureau of Labor Statistics:

I respect your points Rodram, and at least you try to throw some support behind your beliefs. But I'll leave you with this. You rely upon the CBO as the source of these great calculations. I would say the CBO has about as much skill in accurately predicting the true cost of a program as Hellen Keller had telling one color from another. They are parrots of the government. They are given numbers, and then build a budget report on those numbers without ever considering how to realistically achieve those amounts.

If you told the CBO that the sale of magical unicorns over the next 20 years would create $100B in revenue, they would account for that revenue and not question one bit HOW you plan to get it. They are horribly wrong on just about every program they project and program they try to forecast. (Reference Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, projected National debts, etc.) According to them, we should be running surpluses in the hundreds of billions now. Why? Because they crunch whatever numbers they are given when the predictions were made, and issue a report. I don't fault them, rather the shitty congressmen who inflate numbers and manipulate statistics to achieve a desired result rather than the truth.

I doubt you and I would ever see eye to eye, but hey, that is why each person gets a vote. You'll vote your way, I'll vote mine, and may God help us if the Dems win! J/K Happy hobbying ya'll! I'm done with this thread.

Thanks Marcus for your input. We did see eye to eye on 2 things so were not that far apart; I hope that's not too depressing! Lol

I understand your suspicion of government offices like the CBO and it's well founded. In defense of the CBO, it is bipartisan and gets a little more respect than most. It is hard for me to make that point too because the CBO has often worked against my interest.

I too will end this thread cuz I do gets a little testy sometimes dont ya' know lol!

One last thing I would like to point out is that the data I used here is from a number of different sources and not exclusively from the CBO.

Unless the government gets really serious about cutting spending...

It will all be a moot point. Originally Posted by Mokoa

Sir Mokoa hits it on the head straight and quick. Aman bro