|
Australia3109 Posts
On July 24 2011 07:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
2. In the long term, the US needs to drastically change the way it does social security/welfare. As the population ages, the cost of old age pensions will go up, the cost of government healthcare costs will go up, and the number of people paying income taxes will go down (because retired people earn no money and so pay no taxes). Higher costs and lower revenue mean bigger deficits.
As more of a "matter of fact" and not so much for arguments sake, retired people still pay taxes on income. Any funds received from retirement programs are considered taxable income. There are special forms of retirement income which only gets taxed once (either when it's received as income then it enters the program, or when it is withdrawn at maturity level as retirement income), and sometimes it's taxed twice, both being entered and withdrawn. Even benefits from SS can be taxed as income if other income is high enough, or you're withdrawing enough.
I was not aware of that. So in the US retirement programs get taxed if they are high enough?
Would it still be accurate/fair to say retired overall place a higher burden of the defecit, because they pay LESS taxes, and receive more payments?
|
On July 24 2011 07:52 jon arbuckle wrote:With a week until default (or credit downgrade in case of a "okay, mom, I'll raise the debt ceiling and worry about it later" piece), and with a lot of the TP contingent using this debate for explicit political gain, especially with House Republicans almost like toddlers in their staunch refusal to cooperate, Barack Obama should just declare the United States officially ungovernable and quit. I mean, Obama's been an awful negotiator, public speaker, and PR person throughout his presidency, with the obstinate, stubborn right-wing walking all over him, but morally he's been shining compared to an almost cult-like GOP leadership that I hope, so hope, has alienated everyone except the extreme right. Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
1.In the short term, the US needs to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. Probably some mixture of both is the best option. My 6 months of economics study at university makes me an expert (lol), and generally spending cuts hurt the economy more than tax hikes. Well, duh. The problem is that the House Republicans refuses to endorse anything that so much as looks like a tax hike. Even 75-25 plans bandied about have been shot down outright. There's no doubt that everything the GOP has said about tax hikes hurting the economy and the way to create jobs again has been almost fantasized, like citation needed because everything you say flies in the face of economic theory. Even The Economist has called a spade a spade and the GOP fucking retarded. I mean, it's not like Obama comes into negotiations bearing olive branches of compromise and the GOP tries to take his arm; he comes with his arm out and they're going for his vital organs. Add to all this what seems like tragic misinformation among the bulk of the population - which leads to the idea that cutting Obamacare, NPR, and Social Security will somehow solve everything, that a proper plan can be achieved by cuts alone - and you have a political situation that, in any other country, would have led to credit downgrades long ago. The United States is bricked.
Its gonna take something drastic to wake people up, only time will tell how severe it will be.
|
On July 24 2011 07:45 cfoy3 wrote:
Further in regards to the Healthcare, he should have dropped the parts focusing on death panels. They where an obvious sticking points. Further, the main issue with the bill is its lack of cost control mechanisms. That is true. He should have adapted the Republicans ideas about controlling the costs and be honest about the need to raise taxes to support it.
Part of that "end of life consulting" (death panels) is part of the cost control mechanisms. That consulting includes things like creating a will, making preparations for after-death expenditures, and health related matters like "we're giving you medication that will only give you 2 more months to live, and each day the pain will get 2x worse." As for the other cost control measures, like tort reform (which is largely a corporate thing anyways), a lot of the debate on those came so late that it was quite obvious that they were just part of a plan to stall the bill. The longer the bill is discussed, the more frustrated the public gets with both the delays and the fine details that may not even be enforced. There's a reason why the public generally stays out of the debate, because getting 500+ people to even discuss a bill's merit is hard enough, 400 million is just going to get in the way. The more people that get involved, the more something gets bogged down.
|
On July 24 2011 07:55 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:46 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
2. In the long term, the US needs to drastically change the way it does social security/welfare. As the population ages, the cost of old age pensions will go up, the cost of government healthcare costs will go up, and the number of people paying income taxes will go down (because retired people earn no money and so pay no taxes). Higher costs and lower revenue mean bigger deficits.
As more of a "matter of fact" and not so much for arguments sake, retired people still pay taxes on income. Any funds received from retirement programs are considered taxable income. There are special forms of retirement income which only gets taxed once (either when it's received as income then it enters the program, or when it is withdrawn at maturity level as retirement income), and sometimes it's taxed twice, both being entered and withdrawn. Even benefits from SS can be taxed as income if other income is high enough, or you're withdrawing enough. I was not aware of that. So in the US retirement programs get taxed if they are high enough? Would it still be accurate/fair to say retired overall place a higher burden of the defecit, because they pay LESS taxes, and receive more payments?
It depends on the type of Retirement plan. Social security outflows and 401k outflows are taxed at time of withdrawal as capital gains, or income in the case of Social Security, but in the case of 401k and Social security, it is deposited pre-tax. In the case of Roth IRAs, which are limited in their size, and subject to many other rules, you can deposit funds post tax, but pay no capital gains on the withdrawals.
|
You know you can say a lot of the tea parties, but at least they brought the issue up and our making us think about this problem. Further, they may be extremist, but at least they have committed something to paper. Where is the democratic, bi-partisan plan? You can say a lot about Cut Cap and Balance, but at least it would have solved the problem. If the democrats didn't like it they could have amended it.But no they tabled it, not even letting it be debated. See earlier post.
|
On July 24 2011 07:58 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:55 ControlMonkey wrote:On July 24 2011 07:46 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
2. In the long term, the US needs to drastically change the way it does social security/welfare. As the population ages, the cost of old age pensions will go up, the cost of government healthcare costs will go up, and the number of people paying income taxes will go down (because retired people earn no money and so pay no taxes). Higher costs and lower revenue mean bigger deficits.
As more of a "matter of fact" and not so much for arguments sake, retired people still pay taxes on income. Any funds received from retirement programs are considered taxable income. There are special forms of retirement income which only gets taxed once (either when it's received as income then it enters the program, or when it is withdrawn at maturity level as retirement income), and sometimes it's taxed twice, both being entered and withdrawn. Even benefits from SS can be taxed as income if other income is high enough, or you're withdrawing enough. I was not aware of that. So in the US retirement programs get taxed if they are high enough? Would it still be accurate/fair to say retired overall place a higher burden of the defecit, because they pay LESS taxes, and receive more payments? It depends on the type of Retirement plan. Social security outflows and 401k outflows are taxed at time of withdrawal as capital gains, or income in the case of Social Security, but in the case of 401k and Social security, it is deposited pre-tax. In the case of Roth IRAs, which are limited in their size, and subject to many other rules, you can deposit funds post tax, but pay no capital gains on the withdrawals.
This pretty much. I'm no expert at retirement funds since I'm far from it and not at a point where I can even worry about investing into one. However, I know the general framework. InvalidID seems to have it nailed though.
|
On July 24 2011 08:01 cfoy3 wrote:
You know you can say a lot of the tea parties, but at least they brought the issue up and our making us think about this problem. Further, they may be extremist, but at least they have committed something to paper. Where is the democratic, bi-partisan plan? You can say a lot about Cut Cap and Balance, but at least it would have solved the problem. If the democrats didn't like it they could have amended it.But no they tabled it, not even letting it be debated. See earlier post.
I'm sorry, but this is totally wrong, the tea party is a silly excuse for a group to use an anachronistic label to justify a totally baseless political platform that uses buzzwords to rally public opinion in an incredibly silly and politically damaging manner.
|
On July 24 2011 04:25 jmack wrote:It's pretty clear at this point large INTERNATIONAL banks / financial sectors are guilty of fraudulent banking, or at least swindling millions of people out of TRILLIONS and disregarding any respect for their customers interests. I'll give you that much. But consumers fed into it really really hard.Deregulation is retarded. Retarded. Do you know what the word greed means? What did people think would happen if they allowed the greedy to run free? Well, it's variable per sector. Some areas lose large amount of efficiency with regulation. Especially the manufacturing industries. And if you regulate banking too much people will go abroad, but deregulating certain areas is stupid.Tax the rich; hard. There should be large government SPENDING not CUTS ( cuts is moronic ). Mind elaborating on this beyond "They're greedy rich inhuman bastards that don't deserve anything".
And before anyone claims I don't know what is it I'm talking about let me paint you a picture:
You are currently allowing the government to tell you that if the rich get tax CUTS they will create jobs; what jobs? What jobs and where are they? Deregulation and wealthy tax cuts have been around for a decade and now that the bubble has burst it's clear the attempt was a complete failure.
I live in Chevron's corporate headquarters. They employ 15k+. They want to move their headquarters to texas. If they do, our area loses jobs. The same thing can happen on an international level. Clinton's policies cause
With that in mind, you're allowing your ELECTED officials to present more ideas following the same broken logic. No corporation can create jobs if there's no demand for their product ( regardless of how much the company pays it's CEO's ) IF THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THE PRODUCTS HAVE NO MONEY.
So what we do, is we take money from the people who sell products, and then people buy the products iwth the money we took from those people that make them. That makes sense.
A serious move towards a socialist ( don't be ignorant and overreact to the word; go do some research and tell me it isn't a more ideal system we should be striving to move toward ) nation is a great way to actually recover the economy. This is not just information I am posting on TL forums; it is being screamed at you by those stuck behind the main stream cable media.
Committing to socialism can work. (sweden) Going halfway (greece) causes problems. If you commit to a Keynesian viewpoint entirely, this is true. But if you follow the London school of thought, spending on debt deepens recession.
No matter what your beliefs, no matter what they are; I have a hard time believing ANYONE supports the notion that millions should go hungry/poor while working 60hrs a week for minimum wage while CEO's of THE BANKS collect half billion dollar bonuses for doing nothing. The banks and their CEO's are the modern day version of medieval lords of land, seemingly immune to the law and collecting absurd wages based on the misuse and exploitation of their slaves. Yes we're slaves; we're slaves living on the illusion that we're free and that one day we can be the "wealthy".
lolwut
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty.
And those on welfare with a flat screen TV are.... people with bad priorities. I don't deny that this happens to a certain extent, but
1) The world economy is NOT a zero sum game.
2) If you're a naturalist you'll argue you can't control your own actions. But to contest that we as citizens are slaves of the corporate monster isn't particularly honest. Sure, we are dependent upon them, but with heavy unionization and the like, most workers aren't really abused.
I look forward to your views, discussing them and reflecting on my own.
[spoiler]Yes I am angry and disgusted. The more I learn about our system the sweeter the word "revolution" sounds.[/spoiler]
[b]
|
@aksfjh
Those death panels fundamentally would kill people because of lack of money. You cannot escape that. Now I think that it should be done, we need more emphasis on hospice care in the terminal phases of life, but you don't have to be a genius that when people here these kind of things there not gonna be ok about it. I am willing to do this, but how can I tell people "where gonna let her die because we do not feel like paying". lets not dillude ourselves, that is what it was about. Now, where these actions of the GOP efforts to bog down the bill? Yeh probably. But then I flip the argument around and ask how come they weren't put into the bill from the beginning. You may say that the arguments where political, but you can not deny that the health care law will be a huge expenditure with a lack of cost control mechanism that should have been added in the first place. Now if it is a huge expenditure and the dems insist that its for the best, then that's one thing. But at least be honest about it and include higher taxes to pay for it. If you explain why you think the bill should be this way, why exactly taxes should be raised, and people still complain than that means it shouldn't be done. Period. Fundamentally, if we decide we don't want to fund it because we don't want it, than that's for us as a society to choose. Don't however pretend that that's not the case and we wont incur big deficients. Be honest.That is why the idea of a balanced budget amendment is so necessary to stop this kind of stuff.
|
On July 24 2011 08:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 08:01 cfoy3 wrote:
You know you can say a lot of the tea parties, but at least they brought the issue up and our making us think about this problem. Further, they may be extremist, but at least they have committed something to paper. Where is the democratic, bi-partisan plan? You can say a lot about Cut Cap and Balance, but at least it would have solved the problem. If the democrats didn't like it they could have amended it.But no they tabled it, not even letting it be debated. See earlier post. I'm sorry, but this is totally wrong, the tea party is a silly excuse for a group to use an anachronistic label to justify a totally baseless political platform that uses buzzwords to rally public opinion in an incredibly silly and politically damaging manner.
Not only that, but the bill voted on was one that would completely wreck the US as we know it. It was voted on in full faith by most of those Republicans that it would never pass the Senate. Even the premise is stood under, tying any debt increase to spending and tax reform is by itself incredibly reckless and dangerous. It's like every time you go out to eat, the entire restaurant patronage has to decide when and where everybody is eating again and how they're going to divide the checks this time.
|
|
|
Yeh I agree that Cut Cap and Balance was a pretty bad, partisan bill; however, I also know that it didn't have to stay that way. The fundamental principals that we should have some immediate cuts, and attach a balanced budget amendments was good. It should however be amended to get rid of that silly 2/3 things about raising taxes, and capping the government spending at 18% in the amendment. however, I think it in principal it should be there and there should be some safe guards to allow congress to ignore it in case of an emergency. The spending should be capped, maybe not at 18%, maybe 90% but in principal it should be done. the bill was bad, but it didn't have to stay that way. That's why you have amendments. The senate could have amended it to include changes to the tax code, fix the amendment, and cut some of the waste of government.Make it bi-partisan. Attack a lot of the changes from the gang of six plan. It could have at least let the senate have something that they could, perhaps even now, be working on. However, the senate, in a completely political maneuver, tabled the bill. No discussion, no amendments. What is Congress doing now? Twiddling there thumbs, still waiting on this "mysterious" deal of Obama's. What I am afraid is gonna happen is some crazy 1000 page bill is gonna come through. That no one has a chance to read, and we have to pass it because we dont have any time with no way of going through it. Thats not right either. Neither side is doing whats right.
p.s its been 800 days since the senate has passed a budget. That is unexpectable. At least the Republicans came up with something.
|
On July 24 2011 08:12 cfoy3 wrote:
@aksfjh
Those death panels fundamentally would kill people because of lack of money. You cannot escape that. Now I think that it should be done, we need more emphasis on hospice care in the terminal phases of life, but you don't have to be a genius that when people here these kind of things there not gonna be ok about it. I am willing to do this, but how can I tell people "where gonna let her die because we do not feel like paying". lets not dillude ourselves, that is what it was about. Now, where these actions of the GOP efforts to bog down the bill? Yeh probably. But then I flip the argument around and ask how come they weren't put into the bill from the beginning. You may say that the arguments where political, but you can not deny that the health care law will be a huge expenditure with a lack of cost control mechanism that should have been added in the first place. Now if it is a huge expenditure and the dems insist that its for the best, then that's one thing. But at least be honest about it and include higher taxes to pay for it. If you explain why you think the bill should be this way, why exactly taxes should be raised, and people still complain than that means it shouldn't be done. Period. Fundamentally, if we decide we don't want to fund it because we don't want it, than that's for us as a society to choose. Don't however pretend that that's not the case and we wont incur big deficients. Be honest.That is why the idea of a balanced budget amendment is so necessary to stop this kind of stuff.
Tort reform was left out initially because, if I'm not mistaken, it is a largely corporate interest in the first place. Doctors have to worry some about malpractice lawsuits, but a great majority of those that complain are actually large businesses that fear class action suits. It's like coming to a discussion about proper track training and telling people they need to go train swimming in the pool more often. Yes, tort reform would help cut costs, but it's not something they need to focus on in order to make deep cuts.
They did eventually agree on a lot of cuts to current programs to make room for "better" alternatives issued in the legislation. Medicare and Medicaid ended up being reformed in order to make room for a lot of the costs this program would create, as well as income was added in the form of penalties and fees as well as certain loopholes being closed. In the end, it was projected that the new plan wouldn't cost us a dime extra from what we would be paying in 10 years. We'll know for sure if that's right in the future, but for now, it wasn't a bad deal for anybody.
As for "somebody is going to die because we can't afford them," that will always be true. It's true in the current system we have. Except, now, there's a larger portion of people that are in danger, but the risk is spread a lot further. Before, income and career played a huge roll in the "triage." In a better system, triage is reduced, and those that suffer from it are the ones who have the least chance of survival, and in extreme cases, the worst chance of a comfortable survival. We don't live in a perfect world, and supplies aren't limitless. We can either approach this from a capitalistic "survival of those that can pay," or a more humane "survival of those that can survive."
|
On July 24 2011 08:24 cfoy3 wrote:
That is unexpectable. At least the Republicans came up with something.
Mind-melting.
|
@aksfjh
you bring up interesting points. I will look into it.
|
Its not so simple as corporation bad, government bad. Both have flaws and each should be used to help negate the downsides of the other. Corporations are good at making money and limiting waste. governments should protect the people and making sure that the corporations that make money are helping America.
This is pretty much the truth right here. Problem is no one can agree on what the terms should be.
|
On July 24 2011 08:24 cfoy3 wrote:
Yeh I agree that Cut Cap and Balance was a pretty bad, partisan bill; however, I also know that it didn't have to stay that way. The fundamental principals that we should have some immediate cuts, and attach a balanced budget amendments was good. It should however be amended to get rid of that silly 2/3 things about raising taxes, and capping the government spending at 18% in the amendment. however, I think it in principal it should be there and there should be some safe guards to allow congress to ignore it in case of an emergency. The spending should be capped, maybe not at 18%, maybe 90% but in principal it should be done. the bill was bad, but it didn't have to stay that way. That's why you have amendments. The senate could have amended it to include changes to the tax code, fix the amendment, and cut some of the waste of government.Make it bi-partisan. Attack a lot of the changes from the gang of six plan. It could have at least let the senate have something that they could, perhaps even now, be working on. However, the senate, in a completely political maneuver, tabled the bill. No discussion, no amendments. What is Congress doing now? Twiddling there thumbs, still waiting on this "mysterious" deal of Obama's. What I am afraid is gonna happen is some crazy 1000 page bill is gonna come through. That no one has a chance to read, and we have to pass it because we dont have any time with no way of going through it. Thats not right either. Neither side is doing whats right.
p.s its been 800 days since the senate has passed a budget. That is unexpectable. At least the Republicans came up with something.
The fundamental purpose of the bill was for a political statement, and if it were to be passed, a HUGE long term win for Republicans. Even then, you can't amend everything out of it. If it changed too much, it would have undoubtedly come out the other side as unpassable in the house. Even then, doing edits to a bill that drastically cuts back on government in general is likely to send a message of bending to partisan lack of compromise. The equivalent would be the senate sending over a bill with nothing but tax increases, and then a measure to make sure any tax breaks would have to be met with an increase somewhere else. Even the modification of such a bill would make a Republican writhe with pain.
To put it into Starcraft balance terms, if Blizzard one day stated that Terran "is completely overpowered" and they were about to be "nerfed into the ground," then they increased all cloak research time by 5s, you'd hear nothing but how much Blizzard hates Terran for the next year. The nerf would actually be nothing in comparison, but the statement beforehand speaks a ton and makes people fear what will come.
Without a balanced approach and compromise before a bill is even submitted, there is no political room to even approach such a steaming pile on the floor.
|
I wish the Democrats would step up a bit more. The criticism that they aren't putting as much forward on paper is pretty valid. I would like them to commit to some ideas more solidly. I also wish Republicans would learn what compromise actually means. They keep reminding me of that recent political cartoon where Obama steps forward and the Republican steps back. Kind of unhappy with both sides to be honest. I'd prefer something with efficient spending cuts and some revenue increases by increasing taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes. That $4 trillion plan that they were circling a few days ago seemed decent. Never really know too much of the specifics though as everything is changing so quickly. Economics obviously isn't my strong point though. 
|
@cfoy3
Thanks for taking time out of your day for that post, it really jump started my engine. You reminded me of how much I really take part in our governement and I need to step up a little and learn more about economics to make informed decisions. Thanks ^.^.
|
On July 24 2011 06:06 Tuneful wrote:
A thousand times this. All of this ideological/economic discussion is a moot point - this entire crisis is Mitch McConnell's arch-plan to further alienate Obama from his base (most of his base has already been alienated since he failed to deliver on most of his campaign promises) as well as give his party something to run on in 2012.
Didn't see anybody call you on this. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Says that he is doing pretty good on his promises. He isn't perfect and has broken a couple of important ones, but overall he is doing good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
