Are you ready to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Even Alan Greenspan who gave his imprimatur to them back when says it's time to reinstate them. In another post you either ignored my answer to your astonished reaction that these cuts were supposed to be temporary. Of course I realize that you consider it virtuous to be unreasonable.
Don't forget that there have always been economists - and Republican lawmakers - who not only thought the W-era tax-rate reductions should be extended indefinitely, but that they should be a mere starting point for even larger and more broad-based cuts in all kinds of taxes - personal income, corporate income, capital gains, inventory, fuel, etc. that's the camp I've always been in. So, no it is never time to hike taxes above what the W-era rate reductions brought them down to, but expecially right now, when unemployment is so high and we need to get business moving again.
It may not be a matter of what I want. You see, all the money you and I paid in was pissed away as soon as it arrived at the Treasury. It's been on shaky footing since it was established. I may get in under the wire. May. I'm not holding my breath. But, per Paul Ryan, certainly it has to be different for those under 55. Means-testing. Gradual raising of eligibility age. Maybe smaller checks. Maybe partial or total privatization. There is no way to avoid it. None. Same goes for Medicare
Why do you ignore the graphs, such as the ones Paul Ryan has shown on his video, that make it clear beyond dispute that the measures you're talking about wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. Plus, this "reinstate the[and here you clearly meant "rollback of"] Bush tax cuts" business proves that you're aware your own money has been pissed away and now you feel like someone else owes it to you to make good on an insincere promise from the 1930s.
And what makes Paul Ryan (a Gen Xer, b. 1/29/50 by the way) so sincere and trustable? Lies, damn lies and statistics. It is boomers like you who won't fight for our rights to OUR MONEY that hurt the cause, all for ideology. No, I am not aware that my own money has been pissed away. At worst, it was "borrowed" and must be repaid, despite the Tea Party downgrade you folks are cheering about. That is what you say. These so-called entitlements have been the law of the land for our entire careers. A law is a law is a law. We didn't vote the lawmakers in who legislated them any more than the Xers did. I suppose we owe so much to the Greatest Generation (who merely killed better instead of being killed, the way war has always worked, history being written by the victors, as always) that we should readily accept that we financed their relative prosperity in retirement and cannot expect any return whatsoever. Many have observed that Ryan's bill is a precursor to serious inter-generational division. You often carp about having your assets seized at gunpoint yet you seem so cavalier about the loss of your social insurance benefits that you paid for your entire life. Stay principled (on behalf of principles)!
Borrowing is not the term you're looking for in regard to what has happened to all the money you and I have paid into Social Security. Pilfering is that accurate term. It has always been raided by Congress to pay for ever-ballooning general expenses.
The money is not there.
If you are not in denial about this, you must show how we can fund the big three entitlements at current levels indefinitely.
Paul Ryan is not only sincere, he's alarmed, like most Americans.
Europe is already where we are headed. Taxi drivers and public-sector functionaries filling the streets of Athens, screaming for pension money that is not there, and that the EU cannot come up with. Students in the streets of France, screaming that they are entitled to student loans and government jobs. Wild adolescents in the streets of London burning down stores because they think some "rich" class is depriving them of a future.
People who still insist that SS keep getting paid to everybody who turns 65 until the end of time are in denial. It can't be done. There is not enough money from anyplace else in the federal budget to make it possible.
I can also insist on a right to have a flourescent pink unicorn prace around my living room pooping psychedelic lollipops, but insisting so would make me look pretty delusional.
It is pretty well known by now that nobody trusts anybody right now in this country. Our markets run on greed and fear, and both are running rampant at present, not the most desirable attributes for the basis of our well being or our discontent as the ticker rises/falls, and the bell tolls at the end of a frenzied day on Wall Street. And, lately, at least one rating agency does not trust the American political system as capable of getting things done. You decry socialism, but Commie China's kickin' ass by your standards. Hey, what's this I hear about corp America sitting on a Tril? And if you placed that flourescent pink unicorn that poops psychedelic lollipops on layaway for your 65th birthday and the store sold it to someone else, I think you might have a valid claim and, if that "object" was a rarity, sought by collectors, stolen while in the care of the retailer, or some such happenstance, you might even be entitled to punitive damages. I am guessing that the rioters are primarily scared. I know that is quite "touchy-feelie, but that is my take. Of course their mob reactions are extreme and make for 'shake-your-head" video snippets, but they're as frightened as that hot shot trader snortin coke on the street.
Just had a thought here that freedom and self-reliance can be pretty frightening too. To do battle with one's inner demons and call upon one's deeper resources are things many humans blanch at. Talk about majorities, we seem to prefer comfort and convenience, but, it is quite questionable whether this makes us truly happy and content. Look around at all the burgeoning beef guts we have here now, young and old. Hardship makes the mettle. As a young lad, my father's tales of his depression upbringing used to scare the crap outta me, what, no seconds of mashed potatoes, you went to bed hungry, your father lost his job and then got sick and died, ooh, man, hope we never go through that again. He told me not to worry because the banks were insured now. What kind of faith do we have in the FDIC these days? Humans, not just Americans, can be resourceful and it is times like these, that hopefully aren't just ramping up to become worse, much worse, that behoove us all to dig deeper and come up with the best they can muster to break on through to the other side. It may be late in the day, but there has always been another sunrise for the past 4.54 Biillion years, according to current thinking, but, of course not consensus.
I'll be 62 in Jan. so this current debate is all getting worrisome, and I would think you might agree, quite personal for me and my demographic, if not yours our your spouse's. I don't know about rioting in the streets, but, hey man, I wanna be able to enjoy my dotage. I paid into it. Didn't you and yours? This ain't no pink unicorn to a lot of citizens.
This appears in today's Columbus Republic, perhaps it can be used as a primer for those who do not understand or, evidently care, since ideology is all to some, I guess. This is real. And it cuts pretty damn close to home....
Deciding when to take Social Security benefits has become a complex issue for baby boomers who worry about the future of the program, how to balance their finances and the budget wrangling on Capitol Hill. A growing number of retirees are applying for benefits at 62, the youngest age when people can apply. In 2009, 42 percent of 62-year-olds filed for benefits, up from 38 percent in 2007, according to the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Others find that they must keep working beyond age 65 and after, taking Social Security just to have enough income to keep up with the costs of housing, food and medical care. Social Security never was meant to be the sole source of retirement income, said certified financial planner Sarah Green, who earlier this week presented a program about Social Security at the Bartholomew County Public Library.
Uncertainty in the stock market, worries about national debt and talk of Social Security reform are good reasons for people to study their options, Green said. “Social Security is an important part of retirement planning,” Green said. “It’s a logical place to start when building that bedrock.”
Instituted in 1935 during the Great Depression, Social Security helps older Americans in retirement, workers who become disabled and families in which a spouse or parent dies.
According to the Social Security Administration, about 155 million people work and pay Social Security taxes, and about 54 million people receive monthly benefits. Green said between two and three workers pay Social Security taxes for every retiree receiving benefits today, compared with 40 in 1935.
Which is why you ought to be asking everyone in a position to affect the funding of your sunset years, "Is the money really there? Where is it going to come from?"
Are you ready to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Even Alan Greenspan who gave his imprimatur to them back when says it's time to reinstate them. In another post you either ignored my answer to your astonished reaction that these cuts were supposed to be temporary. Of course I realize that you consider it virtuous to be unreasonable.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/node/17677736?story_id=17677736
"The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary; but allowing them to expire was always going to be politically agonising."
Don't forget that there have always been economists - and Republican lawmakers - who not only thought the W-era tax-rate reductions should be extended indefinitely, but that they should be a mere starting point for even larger and more broad-based cuts in all kinds of taxes - personal income, corporate income, capital gains, inventory, fuel, etc. that's the camp I've always been in. So, no it is never time to hike taxes above what the W-era rate reductions brought them down to, but expecially right now, when unemployment is so high and we need to get business moving again.
ReplyDeleteSo, after nearly a half a century of paying payroll taxes you are now prepared to have your social insurance bennies cut?
ReplyDeleteIt may not be a matter of what I want. You see, all the money you and I paid in was pissed away as soon as it arrived at the Treasury. It's been on shaky footing since it was established.
ReplyDeleteI may get in under the wire. May. I'm not holding my breath. But, per Paul Ryan, certainly it has to be different for those under 55. Means-testing. Gradual raising of eligibility age. Maybe smaller checks. Maybe partial or total privatization.
There is no way to avoid it. None.
Same goes for Medicare
Yes there is a way to avoid it. Reinstate the Bush tax cuts! And continue cutting other programs. This is not an entitlement. We paid into this!
ReplyDeleteAnd don't try to tell me that 1.3 Trillion spent on our ongoing wars does not figure into the equation.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you ignore the graphs, such as the ones Paul Ryan has shown on his video, that make it clear beyond dispute that the measures you're talking about wouldn't be a drop in the bucket.
ReplyDeletePlus, this "reinstate the[and here you clearly meant "rollback of"] Bush tax cuts" business proves that you're aware your own money has been pissed away and now you feel like someone else owes it to you to make good on an insincere promise from the 1930s.
And what makes Paul Ryan (a Gen Xer, b. 1/29/50 by the way) so sincere and trustable? Lies, damn lies and statistics. It is boomers like you who won't fight for our rights to OUR MONEY that hurt the cause, all for ideology. No, I am not aware that my own money has been pissed away. At worst, it was "borrowed" and must be repaid, despite the Tea Party downgrade you folks are cheering about. That is what you say. These so-called entitlements have been the law of the land for our entire careers. A law is a law is a law. We didn't vote the lawmakers in who legislated them any more than the Xers did. I suppose we owe so much to the Greatest Generation (who merely killed better instead of being killed, the way war has always worked, history being written by the victors, as always) that we should readily accept that we financed their relative prosperity in retirement and cannot expect any return whatsoever. Many have observed that Ryan's bill is a precursor to serious inter-generational division. You often carp about having your assets seized at gunpoint yet you seem so cavalier about the loss of your social insurance benefits that you paid for your entire life. Stay principled (on behalf of principles)!
ReplyDeleteErrata: b. 1/29/70. I get so used to my own 1/20/50.
ReplyDeleteBorrowing is not the term you're looking for in regard to what has happened to all the money you and I have paid into Social Security. Pilfering is that accurate term. It has always been raided by Congress to pay for ever-ballooning general expenses.
ReplyDeleteThe money is not there.
If you are not in denial about this, you must show how we can fund the big three entitlements at current levels indefinitely.
Paul Ryan is not only sincere, he's alarmed, like most Americans.
Europe is already where we are headed. Taxi drivers and public-sector functionaries filling the streets of Athens, screaming for pension money that is not there, and that the EU cannot come up with. Students in the streets of France, screaming that they are entitled to student loans and government jobs. Wild adolescents in the streets of London burning down stores because they think some "rich" class is depriving them of a future.
People who still insist that SS keep getting paid to everybody who turns 65 until the end of time are in denial. It can't be done. There is not enough money from anyplace else in the federal budget to make it possible.
I can also insist on a right to have a flourescent pink unicorn prace around my living room pooping psychedelic lollipops, but insisting so would make me look pretty delusional.
ReplyDeleteHas Paul Ryan ever done anything to indicate to you that he's not sincere?
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty well known by now that nobody trusts anybody right now in this country. Our markets run on greed and fear, and both are running rampant at present, not the most desirable attributes for the basis of our well being or our discontent as the ticker rises/falls, and the bell tolls at the end of a frenzied day on Wall Street. And, lately, at least one rating agency does not trust the American political system as capable of getting things done. You decry socialism, but Commie China's kickin' ass by your standards. Hey, what's this I hear about corp America sitting on a Tril? And if you placed that flourescent pink unicorn that poops psychedelic lollipops on layaway for your 65th birthday and the store sold it to someone else, I think you might have a valid claim and, if that "object" was a rarity, sought by collectors, stolen while in the care of the retailer, or some such happenstance, you might even be entitled to punitive damages. I am guessing that the rioters are primarily scared. I know that is quite "touchy-feelie, but that is my take. Of course their mob reactions are extreme and make for 'shake-your-head" video snippets, but they're as frightened as that hot shot trader snortin coke on the street.
ReplyDeleteJust had a thought here that freedom and self-reliance can be pretty frightening too. To do battle with one's inner demons and call upon one's deeper resources are things many humans blanch at. Talk about majorities, we seem to prefer comfort and convenience, but, it is quite questionable whether this makes us truly happy and content. Look around at all the burgeoning beef guts we have here now, young and old. Hardship makes the mettle. As a young lad, my father's tales of his depression upbringing used to scare the crap outta me, what, no seconds of mashed potatoes, you went to bed hungry, your father lost his job and then got sick and died, ooh, man, hope we never go through that again. He told me not to worry because the banks were insured now. What kind of faith do we have in the FDIC these days? Humans, not just Americans, can be resourceful and it is times like these, that hopefully aren't just ramping up to become worse, much worse, that behoove us all to dig deeper and come up with the best they can muster to break on through to the other side. It may be late in the day, but there has always been another sunrise for the past 4.54 Biillion years, according to current thinking, but, of course not consensus.
ReplyDeleteI'll be 62 in Jan. so this current debate is all getting worrisome, and I would think you might agree, quite personal for me and my demographic, if not yours our your spouse's. I don't know about rioting in the streets, but, hey man, I wanna be able to enjoy my dotage. I paid into it. Didn't you and yours? This ain't no pink unicorn to a lot of citizens.
ReplyDeleteThis appears in today's Columbus Republic, perhaps it can be used as a primer for those who do not understand or, evidently care, since ideology is all to some, I guess. This is real. And it cuts pretty damn close to home....
http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/When_will_you_retire__1313034501/
Deciding when to take Social Security benefits has become a complex issue for baby boomers who worry about the future of the program, how to balance their finances and the budget wrangling on Capitol Hill. A growing number of retirees are applying for benefits at 62, the youngest age when people can apply. In 2009, 42 percent of 62-year-olds filed for benefits, up from 38 percent in 2007, according to the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Others find that they must keep working beyond age 65 and after, taking Social Security just to have enough income to keep up with the costs of housing, food and medical care. Social Security never was meant to be the sole source of retirement income, said certified financial planner Sarah Green, who earlier this week presented a program about Social Security at the Bartholomew County Public Library.
Uncertainty in the stock market, worries about national debt and talk of Social Security reform are good reasons for people to study their options, Green said. “Social Security is an important part of retirement planning,” Green said. “It’s a logical place to start when building that bedrock.”
Instituted in 1935 during the Great Depression, Social Security helps older Americans in retirement, workers who become disabled and families in which a spouse or parent dies.
According to the Social Security Administration, about 155 million people work and pay Social Security taxes, and about 54 million people receive monthly benefits. Green said between two and three workers pay Social Security taxes for every retiree receiving benefits today, compared with 40 in 1935.
Which is why you ought to be asking everyone in a position to affect the funding of your sunset years, "Is the money really there? Where is it going to come from?"
ReplyDelete