| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Social security and Medicare DOUBLED in cost within 10 years. Medicare was 300 bill a year, now its 800 bill a year. Social security was 400 Bill a year, now its 700 Bill a year. In just 10 years, 2 programs added 800 Bill more to their expense figures. By 2015, Medicare and Social security will reach 1trillion and 800 Bill respectively. These 2 programs are going to be the wrench that breaks the American economic machine. | ||
|
nemo14
United States425 Posts
On August 06 2011 18:14 KwarK wrote: Because 4+1 = 5 whereas 3+0 = 3. 5 > 3. If you're a member of the American electorate then I think I'm beginning to understand why the credit rating is getting downgraded. Fortunately I don't vote at 4am. Disregard me, gentlemen. I need some time to eat breakfast and relearn math. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:17 Tien wrote: You can't blame the 2 wars alone. Social security and Medicare DOUBLED in cost within 10 years. Medicare was 300 bill a year, now its 800 bill a year. Social security was 400 Bill a year, now its 700 Bill a year. In just 10 years, 2 programs added 800 Bill more to their expense figures. By 2015, Medicare and Social security will reach 1trillion and 800 Bill respectively. These 2 programs are going to be the wrench that breaks the American economic machine. Source your facts please. Social security is currently running at a surplus. That's right, the program does not cost the government money (yet), the gov actually borrows money from the Social security fund. It is only in 2017 that Social security is projected to start costing money. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890542,00.html On the other hand, we never saw a cent out of iraq, afganistan. (Oil prices actually went up! I jest--kinda). | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:17 Tien wrote: You can't blame the 2 wars alone. Social security and Medicare DOUBLED in cost within 10 years. Medicare was 300 bill a year, now its 800 bill a year. Social security was 400 Bill a year, now its 700 Bill a year. In just 10 years, 2 programs added 800 Bill more to their expense figures. By 2015, Medicare and Social security will reach 1trillion and 800 Bill respectively. These 2 programs are going to be the wrench that breaks the American economic machine. True, strangely their costs rose during Republican era. After so many assholish moves I would not be surprised if they allowed the costs to grow so much without finding money to actually fund them on purpose, so they can point to them and say that they need to be cancelled, as many Republicans dislike Social security and Medicare, but could not touch them without losing elections. EDIT:Seems even I got convinced by rhetoric  Totally forgot the data about Social security. | ||
|
TALkori
20 Posts
On August 06 2011 21:41 Reborn8u wrote: Wondering what has happened to America's middle class? It's simple, Free trade. Anything we used to produce here can be produced much cheaper in a country with people who will work for just a few dollars per day, with no unions or benefits. The U.S. used to have taxes or tariffs on imported goods from countries like China and Mexico. These taxes were to protect the American worker, so we could compete on even footing in our own markets with imported goods. Free trade only benefits corporations. They produce products for next to nothing, import it to the U.S. and make billions. This is what has happened to Americas middle class. Now we all work in the "service industry". The U.S. economy is just recycling the same money around over and over. The few areas where our country is still competing globally, are drying up fast. Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price. You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote: Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price. You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources. It is not so clear cut. It does not benefit the customer if that customer cannot now afford it due to losing his job/getting paid less. I am not agreeing with him, just saying that the situation is really complex. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote: Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price. You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources. If we didn't subsidize agriculture, our food prices would rise. Every year there is a lull in demand, or a surplus in supply (perhaps do to good weather?) food prices fall and this discourages farmers from farming the next year. They leave the industry and their fields will become abandoned. The government views agriculture as a form of national security because feeding ourselves is inportant. I would rather spend money on corn than missles. Also, do you know what one of our main exports is? Food. We sell food to countries like China. | ||
|
SMD
Canada627 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:35 mcc wrote: It is not so clear cut. It does not benefit the customer if that customer cannot now afford it due to losing his job/getting paid less. I am not agreeing with him, just saying that the situation is really complex. In the short run Free trade will usually not benefit the USA, as it usually involves jobs going oversees. Usually in the Long long it will benefit everyone as cheaper goods = people buy more which can lead to more jobs, Overall Free trade is good for the WORLD as a whole, but it can sometimes be hurtful to individual nations. The problem is, if your not part of the global economy, or dont help grow it, youll have 330million consumers (USA population) instead of a potential 7 billion. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:28 DeltaSigmaL wrote: Source your facts please. Social security is currently running at a surplus. That's right, the program does not cost the government money (yet), the gov actually borrows money from the Social security fund. It is only in 2017 that Social security is projected to start costing money. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890542,00.html On the other hand, we never saw a cent out of iraq, afganistan. (Oil prices actually went up! I jest--kinda). http://usdebtclock.org/ You're right, but I was talking in aggregate terms. Iraq is the world's 2nd biggest oil reserve and as of right now we haven't seen 1 nickle from it. Money is going somewhere, but not in American public pockets. | ||
|
Dyme
Germany523 Posts
Because god forbid what would happen if people with a lot of money had to share a bit of it. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Pointing fingers at the rich and demanding more tax revenue from them completely ignores the massive amounts of out of control spending that American leaders engage in. This is 100% the responsibility and fault of American leadership in the last 10 years. | ||
|
TALkori
20 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:36 DeltaSigmaL wrote: If we didn't subsidize agriculture, our food prices would rise. Every year there is a lull in demand, or a surplus in supply (perhaps do to good weather?) food prices fall and this discourages farmers from farming the next year. They leave the industry and their fields will become abandoned. The government views agriculture as a form of national security because feeding ourselves is inportant. I would rather spend money on corn than missles. Also, do you know what one of our main exports is? Food. We sell food to countries like China. The main reason why one of your main exports is agricultural goods is because of government subsidies, which in turn cripples global demand for agricultural goods that COULD have been produced in a different country at a cheaper price. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:41 Tien wrote: http://usdebtclock.org/ You're right, but I was talking in aggregate terms. Iraq is the world's 2nd biggest oil reserve and as of right now we haven't seen 1 nickle from it. Money is going somewhere, but not in American public pockets. Well why should it, it should go to the pockets of the Iraqi's. The only way it should go to US is if it was a war of conquest. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:52 mcc wrote: Well why should it, it should go to the pockets of the Iraqi's. The only way it should go to US is if it was a war of conquest. It was a war of conquest, why do you think America is still there? To help build Iraqi homes? American army controls the oil fields. American government is the one that put a puppet Iraqi oil minister in place. American government controls this oil. Money is going somewhere, just not in American or Iraqi public pockets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html You're seeing something similar happen in Libya. Who do you think is giving all these rebels arms and supplies? Why do you think NATO and other European countries have such vested interest in the stability of Libya? It's all about the oil. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:52 TALkori wrote: The main reason why one of your main exports is agricultural goods is because of government subsidies, which in turn cripples global demand for agricultural goods that COULD have been produced in a different country at a cheaper price. Calling it exports is being too gracious already. It's the dumping of goods below market prices, with disastrous consequences for parts of the world. US government does it, EU does too, and it's impossible to get rid off due to the power of farmers in the political process (ty Iowa and France!). | ||
|
NobleDog
United States65 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:47 Dyme wrote: At least the Tea Party achieved preventing a tax increase for rich people. Because god forbid what would happen if people with a lot of money had to share a bit of it. Lol! Who do you think pays the taxes in this country? | ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:55 Tien wrote: It was a war of conquest, why do you think America is still there? To help build Iraqi homes? American army controls the oil fields. American government is the one that put a puppet Iraqi oil minister in place. American government controls this oil. Money is going somewhere, just not in American or Iraqi public pockets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html You're seeing something similar happen in Libya. Who do you think is giving all these rebels arms and supplies? Why do you think NATO and other European countries have such vested interest in the stability of Libya? It's all about the oil. I was not saying how it is, but how should it be, since you implied it should go to American pockets. And it was not really war of conquest as it was not presented as such and it factually did not end up with conquest of Iraq. | ||
|
taldarimAltar
973 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote: Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price. You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources. But free trade sucks if you can't replace jobs lost to offshoring. I agree protecting thoses industries is a horrible waste of money. It's money that can be spent restructuring and specializing in industries to gain a competitive comparative advantage in doing so jobs are replaced in the first place. Same thing happening in the PIGS and Italy now, they are simply not competitive enough to survive | ||
|
FT.aCt)Sony
United States1048 Posts
I mean the president gets like 250k a year, politicians get anywhere from 125-175k a year. Sure 10% seems to be alot but in all reality its not. But yet they're going to stop paying individuals who hold government jobs or withhold active duty military pay. Sorry no. I didn't enlist to active duty years ago just so my pay can get withheld and so a politician can keep their sole income. Hopefully this doesn't last that long but who knows. I've been debating about leaving the country and residing elsewhere after my term of enlistment just because of the economy alone. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
