Size Of Government - What Do We Really Want?

[Midpack]

I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals.

• Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B.
• From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome.
• The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome.

Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

 

[MasterBlaster]

I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals.

• Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B.
• From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome.
• The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome.

Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

To answer you...

1) The rest comes from a recovered economy generating additional revinue.

2) To get the "all-in" costs on the wars you need to include all the VA-medical expenses for all those severely injured in the wars as well as worn-out equipment replacement (tanks/planes etc.) and interest to finance it all. When you include that the figures I have seen go to the $800B - $1T level.

3) take a look at a chart like you show around say 2025 to see the explosion in Medicare/medicaid costs. This is due to the Boomers retirement numbers as well as the medical costs continuing their rapid rise. Unless that program gets under control the deficits will be approximately the size of current spending - every year. Clearly it isn't sustainable.

 

[jackontrack]

Yep -- cut MY taxes, cut THEIR programs.

Frankly I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

That's exactly how I feel as well. The gov't needs to strike a balance between providing just enough services and security so that everyone can live in this country decently, without the overreaching.

I'd like to see an end to the wars. I'd like to see trimming of all the waste. I think entitlements are the last thing we should touch because...let's face it, most people who are using these entitlements NEED them.

I'd like to see a low flat tax for everyone (business + individuals) and minimized (if any) tax deductions. That would be fair.

I'd like to see healthcare, utilities, and all essential services be run not-for-profit, to prevent gauging citizens and to promote better quality services.

 

[HFWR]

...pointless bickering?

+1

 

[Texas Proud]

I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals.

• Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B.
• From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome.
• The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome.

Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

Heck, lets not pay the interest and we can save an additional $200 billion....

 

[haha]

That's exactly how I feel as well. The gov't needs to strike a balance between providing just enough services and security so that everyone can live in this country decently, without the overreaching.

I'd like to see an end to the wars. I'd like to see trimming of all the waste. I think entitlements are the last thing we should touch because...let's face it, most people who are using these entitlements NEED them.

I'd like to see a low flat tax for everyone (business + individuals) and minimized (if any) tax deductions. That would be fair.

I'd like to see healthcare, utilities, and all essential services be run not-for-profit, to prevent gauging citizens and to promote better quality services.

This is all coming, right after the Rapture.

Ha

 

[Purron]

This is all coming, right after the Rapture.

Ha

For you my dear Ha.

YouTube - ‪Blondie - Rapture‬‏

 

[sundance]

It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

Well, fact is the money you paid in many years ago was quickly spent shortly thereafter on someone else's benefits. Any money you may be receiving now has been paid in more recent years by someone younger. It's a pyramid scheme.

My personal preference would be to treat it like many corporations treat their retirement programs - offer a buyout: Take a lump sum payment now, and never have to contribute again, but the flip-side is that you never again receive money from the program.

I think I know better than the government how to take care of myself and my money.

 

[samclem]

My personal preference would be to treat it like many corporations treat their retirement programs - offer a buyout: Take a lump sum payment now, and never have to contribute again, but the flip-side is that you never again receive money from the program.

It might be cheaper from an actuarial standpoint but:
1) Where would we get the scratch to make those lump sum payments?
2) The government/voting public will NOT let people starve if they take the lump sum and then blow the money. That's just the way it is--there will be some type of support payments for people who are "victims of poor decisions that were made". I'd rather not be burdened by the taxes needed to support these payments, so I'd be against the lump-sum payout idea.
I'd like to empower folks to take charge of their lives, too--but not if I have to pay for a safety net.

We could never have the western migration and settling of the West today. What were those folks thinking?! Puting themselves and their little children at risk from heat, cold, starvation, attacks by unfriendly elements, etc. Have they received any training for this quest? As a caring society, we'd have to establish rest stops every few miles for the wagon trains, create support payments for settlers who ran out of resources enroute, counseling for those traumatized by life on the trail, etc. I can only weep for the environmental damage done by those wagon wheels and foraging oxen.

 

[haha]

For you my dear Ha.

Sweetest thing I've heard all day.

Ha

 

[obgyn65]

+1

I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

 

[Midpack]

It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

What you paid in was spent on earlier recipients long ago, all you have is an IOU. It's most certainly an entitlement, even the SSA acknowledges that...

Understanding Supplemental Security Income
Social Security Entitlement

2011 Edition
Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI)-- Social Security Entitlement

 

[ERD50]

It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

What you paid in was spent on earlier recipients long ago, all you have is an IOU. It's most certainly an entitlement, even the SSA acknowledges that...

I still think Carol911 has a valid viewpoint. Regardless what the SSA did with the money, she (we) have had deductions from our paychecks, and our employers matched that - our eventual payments are based on a formula that is based on what we paid into the system.

We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part.

As a parallel, let's say you buy a TV that had sat on the shelf for a year. The company already paid its bills for the materials and labor, and the store already paid for the TV. I guess I could say that my money did not 'pay' for that TV, right? Customers before me must have 'paid' for it? And now I'm paying for some future customers TV? I guess that is true also, but not really relevant.

-ERD50

 

[MasterBlaster]

I still think Carol911 has a valid viewpoint. Regardless what the SSA did with the money, she (we) have had deductions from our paychecks, and our employers matched that - our eventual payments are based on a formula that is based on what we paid into the system.

We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part.

As a parallel, let's say you buy a TV that had sat on the shelf for a year. The company already paid its bills for the materials and labor, and the store already paid for the TV. I guess I could say that my money did not 'pay' for that TV, right? Customers before me must have 'paid' for it? And now I'm paying for some future customers TV? I guess that is true also, but not really relevant.

-ERD50

Whatever you feel you are entitled to.... is just you feeling entitled.

The courts have ruled that you have no contractural right to any payment. The rules can be changed with the whim of congress.

And they will make changes after great amounts of pontification, because the money just isn't there..... There is no "trust fund". It was spent. All we have is giant debts that need be paid.

 

[M Paquette]

Whatever you feel you are entitled to.... is just you feeling entitled.

The courts have ruled that you have no contractural right to any payment. The rules can be changed with the whim of congress.

And they will make changes after great amounts of pontification, because the money just isn't there..... There is no "trust fund". It was spent. All we have is giant debts that need be paid.

Amusingly enough, that effectively make the Social Security Entitlement... not an entitlement.

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law.

 

[Midpack]

We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part.
-ERD50

We all understand the emotional aspect of Soc Sec, we pay something in now so we're "entitled" to a benefit later. If the money was set aside and invested on your behalf or an annuity purchased in your name, you would be entitled. But again, your contributions are spent as they come in, it's an intergenerational transfer payment.


Though "we (all) did our part, unfortunately we can't just ignore the math and the cash flow is relevant indeed.

• Should our children, grandchildren, etc. pay ever higher SS taxes instead of some concessions in Soc Sec age and/or benefits?
• Should they pay higher SS taxes to preserve boomers SS age/benefits even if they pass the threshold where they are paying more in than they could ever hope to get out (IOW, they would have been better off just investing or buying an annuity for themselves)?

It's all going to be reconciled like it or not, it's not good enough to say I paid in and I expect to get the benefit I'm "entitled" to even though we've known SS (and Medicare) have been in trouble for decades?
I'll agree with you when you show me the math that supports it...

 

[Texas Proud]

I still think Carol911 has a valid viewpoint. Regardless what the SSA did with the money, she (we) have had deductions from our paychecks, and our employers matched that - our eventual payments are based on a formula that is based on what we paid into the system.

We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part.

As a parallel, let's say you buy a TV that had sat on the shelf for a year. The company already paid its bills for the materials and labor, and the store already paid for the TV. I guess I could say that my money did not 'pay' for that TV, right? Customers before me must have 'paid' for it? And now I'm paying for some future customers TV? I guess that is true also, but not really relevant.

-ERD50

The people who 'invested' with Bernie Madoff are also saying that they should get their money back... this is a closer example than your TV analogy... because there is nothing on the shelf as far as SS goes (even if you count the trust fund, there is not enough to pay everybody what was 'promised')

 

[Gatordoc50]

Everyone wants smaller government and lower taxes, but no one is willing to give up anything that benefits them. But we're all willing to slash something that benefits someone else.

Can't remember the exact quote, but something like 'we all get on the merry go round, and get dizzy and sick, but no one ever gets off.'

I agree. Things are the way they are because that is how we collectively want them, and our representatives can't make the tough decisions required of leaders.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Let Them Eat Cake

• Should our children, grandchildren, etc. pay ever higher SS taxes instead of some concessions in Soc Sec age and/or benefits?
• Should they pay higher SS taxes to preserve boomers SS age/benefits even if they pass the threshold where they are paying more in than they could ever hope to get out (IOW, they would have been better off just investing or buying an annuity for themselves)?

Yes

and

Yes

 

[Midpack]

[/LIST]Yes

and

Yes

Respectfully disagree, but then they were rhetorical questions.

 

[FreeAtLast]

I would imagine downsizing the Federal Government would take 10-20 years and thousands of extra employees to accomplish the job.

 

[eridanus]

One of these may well be in the forthcoming compromise.

1) Dump the mortgage interest deduction.
2) Eliminate the employer health care deduction.

#1 is worth about $150B? #2 is even more, about $250B as I recall.

3) Increase the SS retirement age. That really fixes the future, though, as the SS deficit was "only" $49B last year.

4) Reduce defense spending to 2001 levels.

 

[ERD50]

• Should our children, grandchildren, etc. pay ever higher SS taxes instead of some concessions in Soc Sec age and/or benefits?
• Should they pay higher SS taxes to preserve boomers SS age/benefits even if they pass the threshold where they are paying more in than they could ever hope to get out (IOW, they would have been better off just investing or buying an annuity for themselves)?

Yes

and

Yes

It's all going to be reconciled like it or not, it's not good enough to say I paid in and I expect to get the benefit I'm "entitled" to even though we've known SS (and Medicare) have been in trouble for decades?
I'll agree with you when you show me the math that supports it...

Well, I think it really goes back to the idea that I think the whole system is terribly flawed. I've said it before - it's very odd to me that a a system that is supposed to help those less well off will pay more to those who earned more (and were capable of saving more). It's tough to 'fix' something when it is so ill-defined as to what it is supposed to do.

But to make an attempt to answer your question - given the situation as it is, I don't have a problem with some adjustment to benefits along with some adjustments to payments. It looks like they will be needed, and the sooner we face that the better. But I'd prefer to see the whole system replaced (going forward).

Also - rereading what you wrote, let add some clarity. I wasn't saying personally that I feel all that strongly that I 'paid into it', so I'm 'entitled'. But I was expressing that it isn't an unreasonable thing for people to think. Marking that line item on every paycheck as "FICA" instead of general taxes adds to the feeling, IMO.

-ERD50

 

[Dreamer]

What you paid in was spent on earlier recipients long ago, all you have is an IOU. It's most certainly an entitlement, even the SSA acknowledges that...

Understanding Supplemental Security Income
Social Security Entitlement

2011 Edition
Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI)-- Social Security Entitlement

Supplemental Security Income is a program for the needy. One does not ever have to pay 1 cent into it, in order to receive it. If you read the faq, it is talking about you may be entitled to social security also and that filing for SSI is also an app for SSA. To be entitled to retirement benefits, you have to have the required work credits, be at least age 62 and have filed an application for it. There is a difference between being eligible and being entitled. Just saying...