The statist agenda of ever-growing government requires more money going to Washington, which is why I think that proponents of limited government should do everything they can to block tax increases.
If the last dozen years proved anything, it’s that low taxes don’t prevent government spending.
How do we know that? Looking at the last 32 years, Reagan and George W. Bush presidencies were the ones with the fastest spending growth. They also featured low tax rates. George H. W. Bush and Clinton raised taxes, and saw slower spending growth.
You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the spending growth during the Bush years came at the behest of Congress, not as an outgrowth of Administration Policiies (Medicare Part D is an exception here), while Reagan had a solidly Democratic House to deal with throughout his administration. By comparison Clinton’s lower spending only came about about the 1994 move to a Republican House (Daddy Bush was something of a mixed bag…), and there is little reason to believe that had the GOP not captured the House in 94 that Billy Jeff would have restrained himself at all.
In any event…this really isn’t about GOP vs Dems, it is about whether ANY government will voluntarily restrain spending or simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more. The founders understood this all too well….
You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the spending growth during the Bush years came at the behest of Congress, not as an outgrowth of Administration Policiies (Medicare Part D is an exception here), while Reagan had a solidly Democratic House to deal with throughout his administration. By comparison Clinton’s lower spending only came about about the 1994 move to a Republican House (Daddy Bush was something of a mixed bag…), and there is little reason to believe that had the GOP not captured the House in 94 that Billy Jeff would have restrained himself at all.
In any event…this really isn’t about GOP vs Dems, it is about whether ANY government will voluntarily restrain spending or simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more. The founders understood this all too well….
The issue isn’t President vs. Congress, or Dem vs. GOP, it’s whether lower taxes restrain spending. The historical evidence is that it doesn’t.
This argument that “proponents of limited government should do everything they can to block tax increases” is, I believe, a reversal of actual GOP logic. An sincere proponent of limited government should put that priority above tax rates, and be willing to accept higher taxes in exchange for spending cuts. That’s exactly the sort of deal that Obama’s been offering since 2011, and the GOP has said no every time. Right now Obama is offering to trade cuts to Social Security and Medicare, two of the three biggest pieces of our big government, in exchange for limiting tax deductions. The GOP answer: we won’t do anything that increases revenue.
The fact is that the GOP is committed to blocking tax increases, full stop. Talk about limiting government is for show; when it’s time to make a decision they’d rather have higher spending than higher taxes.
simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more
Huh? The federal government can and has spent more without raising more revenue. Making it harder to raise revenue doesn’t make it harder to spend.
So why does the GOP want to make it harder to raise revenue? Why the Norquist pledge, and the refusal to include revenue in any deal to replace the sequester? Because their top priority is protecting the wealthy from taxes.
You might be on to something, Ken. As a next step, we could eliminate the middleman, and skip paying people directly. Your employer sends what used to be your net pay directly to the Fed, c/o “Obama Stash”, White House, Washington DC. People can be issued the items they need.
“His [Obama's] father said 100% was the correct rate. The government would supply everybody’s ‘needs.’”
Waiting for Baghdad Jim to respond, “So what’s wrong with that?”
At least the Red Diaper Baby’s Daddy (from whom, we should never forget, his son says he gets his dreams) was honest, in a fashion. If you ask “liberals” to give you an idea at which point they might consider the rate of taxation excessive (seventy-five percent? eighty? ninety?), so that they would finally say, “Ok–enough’s enough,” most of them will give you a Chris Gerrib-like weasel answer or not answer at all.
If Obama did somehow get some sense, the ghost of Obama’s Uncle Frank might, like Jacob Marley’s, arise from Commie Hell to haunt nephew Barry and frighten him into remembering his mission to destroy America.
They don’t have to “eye” our 401K’s. They are taxed deferred, they can be taxed at whatever rate the government sees fit when we finally roll them over at 59.5, and they have to be rolled over by 70.5.
The risk is that they’ll “undefer” them because they need money now. And they’ll do it with a song and dance about how taxing them in the present will be offset by reductions in the amount you pay when they are rolled over (which of course won’t be true by the time you roll them over).
Brookings is advocating taxing 401k contributions at 11ish% and then keeping the normal taxation when you take funds out. They are only tax deferred as long as the government wants them to be.
I really don’t understand why our friends on the left want to make it harder to support yourself in retirement. A person who saves their entire life and retires with a million dollars or more, isn’t rich. They have to live off that money during the most expensive years of their lives and very little of it will be left to pass onto their children.
If you’re dependent on government for x, you want more government.
Retirement: SS good! 401k bad!
School: Public good! Vouchers bad!
Protection: Police ‘ok I guess’! Private protection very very bad!
With the normal expectation that “Rules are for the little people” and none of this applies to Trust Funds, private schooling, or bodyguard services.
You can go on down the list of industries that are “city functions” that are heavily cronyized or outright government jobs for no particular reason as well.
There was congressional testimony not too long ago about how people are too stupid to manage their own retirement accounts. Instead, the idea is that the government take over our 401Ks and IRAs and promise to pay us an annuity. They offer this idea because the government has such a wonderful track record at managing money and not because they want to grab several trillion dollars for their own use. And don’t you know, it would be unfair to only give the annuities to those of us who actually saved for our retirement. Oh, heavens no. They’ll give annuities to everyone to spread the wealth around.
Should they even get to the point of holding a vote on this idea, blood will flow. It would be the biggest wealth grab in US history since we stole the country from the Indians.
because the government has such a wonderful track record at managing money
Compared to the private sector, it does. Private retirement plans go bust regularly, while Social Security mails checks like clockwork. Most SS beneficiaries get most of their income from SS, and a large fraction (23% of married couples, 46% of unmarried retirees) get 90% of their income from SS.
SS was intended to be a supplement to a person’s personal retirement plan. It is just an arbitrary payout by the government whereas 401ks depend on your life time contributions and market performance.
Comparing the government’s ability to print money against the ability of a person to build wealth in the private sector is like comparing the validity of string theory and taste of taco seasoning.
Seizing people’s retirement funds to create a duplicate SS program is an incredibly bad idea and if it happened people would still want a private retirement plan of their own so that they could have some control over their retirement than counting on the whims of politicians.
Comparing the government’s ability to print money against the ability of a person to build wealth in the private sector is like comparing the validity of string theory and taste of taco seasoning.
No, it isn’t. Policy makers have to make this comparison. George W. Bush and Paul Ryan proposed moving money out of SS and into privately-controlled investments in 2005. They were saying that you could compare the two, and that one was better, at least for their definition of better.
I think that Bush and Ryan were wrong, and that the country as a whole would be better off if we had higher SS taxes and benefits, and less reliance on private savings for retirement. I think that such a change would reduce elderly poverty and raise median retirement income. But I agree with Bush and Ryan that it’s a comparison that can and should be made.
“I think that Bush and Ryan were wrong, and that the country as a whole would be better off if we had higher SS taxes and benefits, and less reliance on private savings for retirement. I think that such a change would reduce elderly poverty and raise median retirement income. ”
That’s because you are a sucker for the broken window fallacy. Bastiat had your number over a hundred years ago.
Why do you think the government is better able to handle your money than you are?
Well ok maybe in YOUR case they are, since you seem to have no concept of economics.
But for the rest of us, we are much better able to handle our own property than the government is and would prefer it not be stolen at the point of a gun.
And the economy would be worlds better off if that money stayed in their owner’s hands and was therefore used to create more wealth for more people.
And if the economy was better, and more wealth created, then retirement funds would be better, sounder, ore numerous.
And there would be no SS fund to raid for things like war – which you dislike – or stupid lib-dem plantation maintenance programs which I dislike.
Why do you think the government is better able to handle your money than you are?
Look at the stats: 46% of unmarried retirees are getting 90% of their income from Social Security. Clearly the government is better able to provide secure retirement income than a huge swath of the population.
Clearly the government is better able to provide secure retirement income than a huge swath of the population.
Bullshit and more bullshit.
The government is better able to “provide income’ in the same way the mob is able to “provide income”. Social Security is the government using government guns to extract money from some to give to others only because they exist and aged before I did.
So no, the government is not “providing a stable income” because it is taking part of my income that I would use for my own retirement account to give to others. It is threatening my own retirement for the purpose of funding those now who are retired.
Yes, this means Social Security is an evil, morally wrong program that should have never have been started in the first place. This is the evil with government wealth redistribution schemes. It makes everybody a criminal and victim at the same time. “When I get old, I will steal from you for my retirement. But don’t worry, I promise that you can steal from the next guy down when you get old”.
In a more free society neither you or I would steal each other’s money for either of our retirements. We would each keep our own money. Those that couldn’t provide for themselves would fall back on the traditional American safety net: their own families, charities and churches.
See, this is the liberal malfunction. Liberals think there was no safety net prior to the New Deal. There has always been a safety net in this country since the Founding. It just wasn’t until the early 1900′s that the government started “providing” the safety net.
So, the answer to “well, you just want to throw grandma to the wolves by repealing Social Security”, is “no, I want them to fall back on the safety net that existed prior to the government taking it over”.
And guess what, if you are so concerned about the less fortunate, then you and all your liberal friends can create as many charities as you want and give as much of your income as you want to those charities. No government guns pointed at me are required.
Social Security is still the world’s largest legal Ponzi Scheme. The checks will keep going until they can’t. If any private pension fund operated in that manner, their corporate officers would quickly be in jail.
Public sector pension funds are one of the biggest debt bombs dragging down government at all levels.
The federal government itself is over $16 trillion in debt and adding about a trillion dollars a year to the total. If you count the unfunded liabilities, the debt is many times larger than that.
But tell me again how well the government is managing money. I enjoy a good laugh.
The government’s “ability to pay” is based on nothing more than pointing a government gun at somebody. Meaning Social Security is old people making young people pay for the old people’s retirement at the point of a government gun. And this is based on the promise that the young people will be able to have the gun that they can point at the next young people when the current young people become old.
The 401k’s ability to pay is based on your own private decisions about investments you decide you make over your own lifetime. No government guns are pointed at anybody.
So, you can’t compare the two and say the government option is better because the government option is morally wrong to begin with, since it requires forced redistribution of wealth from me for the only purpose that someone else exists and is old.
“The government’s “ability to pay” is based on nothing more than pointing a government gun at somebody.”
I figure the left can be divided between those who fail to grasp that point, and those who feel that such force is acceptable when exercised for their benefit.
I, too, could have a no-fail track record on a pension plan if I was allowed to print and/or steal all the money I needed to keep it running.
Naturally what you like to forget is how much wealth was NOT created, and also how many times the SS fund was raided by the government to pay for things YOU don’t like.
Not sure how you square that with $6t in added debt over four years. Spending isn’t just a metric of raw dollar amounts but should also be considered in relation to our revenues or spending beyond our means.
“Obama 2009 2013 1.4″
So Obama only spent 1.4% more in 2013 than he did in 2009 with TARP and the Stimulus which were supposed to be one time things. Wow…
Why do you even bother using Politifact when they have been debunked for their partisan hackery time and time again?
Since the Senate has refused to do their job and create a budget for the last 4 years, they’ve ran the government on a series of continuing resolutions. Those resolutions used the last passed budget as the baseline. That budget included the “one time” stimulus. That extra spending is now part of the budget baseline.
Could you sadists stop scaring Jim? The mere spectre of an idea that he and his ideological gang could be deprived of their ability to spend other people’s money is enough to give him the shivers.
Spending isn’t just a metric of raw dollar amounts but should also be considered in relation to our revenues
You are confused. Spending is spending. Revenues are revenues. Deficits/surpluses are the difference between the two. If your concern is deficits and debt, then it isn’t “the spending, stupid”, it’s “the difference between spending and revenues, stupid.”
So Obama only spent 1.4% more in 2013 than he did in 2009 with TARP and the Stimulus which were supposed to be one time things. Wow…
An example of “argument by personal incredulity”. If you actually read the article, you will see where that 1.4% figure comes from (hint: it isn’t the percentage spending increase from 2009 to 2013). “Wow” is not a counter-argument.
Why do you even bother using Politifact when they have been debunked for their partisan hackery time and time again?
You don’t understand the figures in the article, but you’re upset by “partisan hackery”? Physician, heal thyself.
It most certainly is. And this problem has been building up for much longer than the current administration’s tenure.
The federal government spends far more money than current revenues or decades of future revenues can cover. That has to end, or there will be a comeuppance. Being in the same boat as Europe and Japan is not a good idea, and it may still be barely avoidable. Given that we have something those countries don’t–massive military expenditures–our crash could be all the more epic.
Nobody before Obama ran a deficit over a Trillion dollars. Nobody.
Expalin that.
Three explanations:
1. It isn’t true. The 2009 deficit was $1.3T before Obama even took the oath of office, four months into the 2009 fiscal year. That one belongs to Bush.
2. Nominal measures of the deficit are meaningless, it’s fraction of the size of the economy that matters. A number of presidents have run much bigger deficits as a fraction of GDP (see this chart).
3. Pro Libertate’s comment was “it’s the spending, stupid.” But deficits are the difference between spending and revenue, and in 2009 we saw a collapse in revenue bigger than any seen since the Great Depression. Obama would have seen record deficits without any changes in discretionary spending.
Jim, we were under a CR untill March of 09. The FY-09 Budget belongs 100% to Obama.
You’re contradicting yourself. If the Bush CR ran through the first six months of FY-09 (10/08-9/09), Obama can’t be 100% responsible for the FY-09 deficit.
The FY-09 deficit was going to top $1T no matter who was elected in 2008.
Hahahahahah they used CBO estimates. When, Jim, will you realize that they are forced to accept Obama assumptions and therefore, count medicare cuts twice (for example)?
Hahahahahah the only projection they used was for the rest of fiscal 2013, which is already half over. Please recalibrate your “reply with tired CBO talking point” machine.
“Hahahahahah the only projection they used was for the rest of fiscal 2013, ”
hahahahaha any 6 month economic estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
2) Politifact is hardly an unbiased outlet (hint: they are heavily biased towards your hero as are the AP and WP which your biased politifact leans upon
3) To borrow 40% of the money you spend and then claim you don’t have a spending problem is, not to put too fine a point on it, lunacy.
Your hero gripes about a lousy 2% cut…..to say that the Feds cannot cut 2% without hurting anything of importance is, also, lunacy.
Please recalibrate your thought process with unbiased facts and not blog blatherings from biased buffoons.
On top of which
any 6 month economic estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on
That 6 months comprises 1/8 of the period in question. Go figure out how much the projection would have to be off to change the overall conclusion (hint: Obama would have to get the GOP Congress to approve more spending hikes for the next six months than it has for the last four years).
Politifact is hardly an unbiased outlet
Who cares? They showed their work. You can do the math yourself.
To borrow 40% of the money you spend and then claim you don’t have a spending problem is, not to put too fine a point on it, lunacy.
And yet the linked article shows that Obama increased spending more slowly than every president since Eisenhower. So if Obama has a spending problem, it’s less of a problem for him than for all of his recent predecessors. Maybe the collapse in federal revenue had something to do with the deficit?
to say that the Feds cannot cut 2% without hurting anything of importance
They aren’t cutting 2% of everything, since some of the biggest things (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty programs) are exempt. So the things that are cut, are cut by more than 2%. Of course that’s going to hurt some things of importance.
For example, the NIH it looking at a 5% cut this year, and 8% in following years. They typically fund 5-year grants. They don’t want to cut grants that are already underway, so they have to apply this year’s 5% cut to the 20% of their grant portfolio that starts this year. That means a 25% cut in new research grants (5/20). In following years it will be a 40% cut (8/20). Now either medical research is unimportant, or that will hurt.
Obama is a lawyer. They don’t admit they are wrong unless unabashedly proven so by someone who’s willing to say they are wrong and not issue a retraction the next day. Without a media that can seriously turn the screws on him and shrink away from his wounded bird routine then he’ll never change his stance on things.
All plans go bust regularly. But all plans can’t steal from taxpayers to cover it up. This is why people diversify.
To claim that government does a better job flies in the face of facts.
The government guarantees poverty for the masses, because that makes them easier to control. Stealing from private retirement savings is outrageous. Tar, meet feathers.
The US government hasn’t ever gone bust. It’s the safest investment in the world, which is why people pay the US Treasury for the privilege of holding their money.
To claim that government does a better job flies in the face of facts.
I think it flies in the face of your prejudices. Name another retirement program that has served as many people, as reliably, for as long, as Social Security.
The American electorate strongly disagrees with you.
I certainly can’t speak for all of them like you can, but many are simply afraid because it’s all they have. Are you trying to tell me none of them would like something better?
Let me just give you one thing… why would the government take away some or all of this retirement benefit of a person works to supplement it?
If this isn’t meant as a boot on the neck, what is it?
Jim, just imagine that the bureaucrat in charge of [your retirement/ your health care / your kids' education/ whatever] is… Me. Did a shiver go down your spine?
Which to any competent manager means, “tighten the belt.”
Please name one national political figure you’d consider a competent manager. Remember than in late 2008, when it was clear that the 2009 deficit was going to be huge, the leadership of the Republican party (George Bush, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain) all supported a deficit-increasing stimulus bill. For that matter, they did the same thing in 2001. Both parties believe in counter-cyclical deficit spending, at least when they’re in charge and being judged on the state of the economy.
There was this governor from AK that sold off things like the former governors private plane and ran a surplus with an approval rating in the 90s until the media decided she was a threat. I’m sure there were others.
George Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain… Mandarins all (why didn’t you include Bob Dole?)
The statist agenda of ever-growing government requires more money going to Washington, which is why I think that proponents of limited government should do everything they can to block tax increases.
If the last dozen years proved anything, it’s that low taxes don’t prevent government spending.
We also know that higher taxes are even less likely to do so.
How do we know that? Looking at the last 32 years, Reagan and George W. Bush presidencies were the ones with the fastest spending growth. They also featured low tax rates. George H. W. Bush and Clinton raised taxes, and saw slower spending growth.
You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the spending growth during the Bush years came at the behest of Congress, not as an outgrowth of Administration Policiies (Medicare Part D is an exception here), while Reagan had a solidly Democratic House to deal with throughout his administration. By comparison Clinton’s lower spending only came about about the 1994 move to a Republican House (Daddy Bush was something of a mixed bag…), and there is little reason to believe that had the GOP not captured the House in 94 that Billy Jeff would have restrained himself at all.
In any event…this really isn’t about GOP vs Dems, it is about whether ANY government will voluntarily restrain spending or simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more. The founders understood this all too well….
You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the spending growth during the Bush years came at the behest of Congress, not as an outgrowth of Administration Policiies (Medicare Part D is an exception here), while Reagan had a solidly Democratic House to deal with throughout his administration. By comparison Clinton’s lower spending only came about about the 1994 move to a Republican House (Daddy Bush was something of a mixed bag…), and there is little reason to believe that had the GOP not captured the House in 94 that Billy Jeff would have restrained himself at all.
In any event…this really isn’t about GOP vs Dems, it is about whether ANY government will voluntarily restrain spending or simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more. The founders understood this all too well….
The issue isn’t President vs. Congress, or Dem vs. GOP, it’s whether lower taxes restrain spending. The historical evidence is that it doesn’t.
This argument that “proponents of limited government should do everything they can to block tax increases” is, I believe, a reversal of actual GOP logic. An sincere proponent of limited government should put that priority above tax rates, and be willing to accept higher taxes in exchange for spending cuts. That’s exactly the sort of deal that Obama’s been offering since 2011, and the GOP has said no every time. Right now Obama is offering to trade cuts to Social Security and Medicare, two of the three biggest pieces of our big government, in exchange for limiting tax deductions. The GOP answer: we won’t do anything that increases revenue.
The fact is that the GOP is committed to blocking tax increases, full stop. Talk about limiting government is for show; when it’s time to make a decision they’d rather have higher spending than higher taxes.
simply take the easier alternative of rasing more revenue to spend more
Huh? The federal government can and has spent more without raising more revenue. Making it harder to raise revenue doesn’t make it harder to spend.
So why does the GOP want to make it harder to raise revenue? Why the Norquist pledge, and the refusal to include revenue in any deal to replace the sequester? Because their top priority is protecting the wealthy from taxes.
So why does the GOP want to make it harder to raise revenue?
Because if the government can’t be responsible with the money it has, on what planet is it a good idea to give it more?
If only we could build on this agreement.
His father said 100% was the correct rate. The government would supply everybody’s ‘needs.’
You might be on to something, Ken. As a next step, we could eliminate the middleman, and skip paying people directly. Your employer sends what used to be your net pay directly to the Fed, c/o “Obama Stash”, White House, Washington DC. People can be issued the items they need.
“His [Obama's] father said 100% was the correct rate. The government would supply everybody’s ‘needs.’”
Waiting for Baghdad Jim to respond, “So what’s wrong with that?”
At least the Red Diaper Baby’s Daddy (from whom, we should never forget, his son says he gets his dreams) was honest, in a fashion. If you ask “liberals” to give you an idea at which point they might consider the rate of taxation excessive (seventy-five percent? eighty? ninety?), so that they would finally say, “Ok–enough’s enough,” most of them will give you a Chris Gerrib-like weasel answer or not answer at all.
If Obama did somehow get some sense, the ghost of Obama’s Uncle Frank might, like Jacob Marley’s, arise from Commie Hell to haunt nephew Barry and frighten him into remembering his mission to destroy America.
Then we have the Democrat party’s policy writers at Brookings advocating taxing 401ks because only rich people have them.
You thought people were ready to revolt over Democrats trying to take away the 2nd amendment? Just wait until they try to tax or seize 401ks…
http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/hunt-revenue-washington-eyes-401k-tax-breaks-2731134-1.html
Then we have the Democrat party’s policy writers at Brookings advocating taxing 401ks because only rich people have them.
Which should (but won’t) have the Republicans openly discussing redefining “charitable organization” and “non-profit”.
They don’t have to “eye” our 401K’s. They are taxed deferred, they can be taxed at whatever rate the government sees fit when we finally roll them over at 59.5, and they have to be rolled over by 70.5.
They don’t have to be “rolled over”. You must begin withdrawing mandated minimums by age 70.5 .
The risk is that they’ll “undefer” them because they need money now. And they’ll do it with a song and dance about how taxing them in the present will be offset by reductions in the amount you pay when they are rolled over (which of course won’t be true by the time you roll them over).
And that they’ll do it in a fashion that benefits revenue most and screws savers most. That is: “Ordinary income!”
“$500,000 all saved up for retirement! That’s nice! How about we undefer the entire thing -today- and you pay the millionaire’s tax on it!”
Whereas you could be planning on withdrawing poverty-level amounts yearly.
Brookings is advocating taxing 401k contributions at 11ish% and then keeping the normal taxation when you take funds out. They are only tax deferred as long as the government wants them to be.
I really don’t understand why our friends on the left want to make it harder to support yourself in retirement. A person who saves their entire life and retires with a million dollars or more, isn’t rich. They have to live off that money during the most expensive years of their lives and very little of it will be left to pass onto their children.
I really don’t understand
Sure you do.
If you’re dependent on government for x, you want more government.
Retirement: SS good! 401k bad!
School: Public good! Vouchers bad!
Protection: Police ‘ok I guess’! Private protection very very bad!
With the normal expectation that “Rules are for the little people” and none of this applies to Trust Funds, private schooling, or bodyguard services.
You can go on down the list of industries that are “city functions” that are heavily cronyized or outright government jobs for no particular reason as well.
Al, you forgot Health Saving Accounts Bad, Obamacare Good.
That one is a real tragedy.
the most expensive years of their lives
Why are they the most expensive? Most retirees spend less than when they were working.
There was congressional testimony not too long ago about how people are too stupid to manage their own retirement accounts. Instead, the idea is that the government take over our 401Ks and IRAs and promise to pay us an annuity. They offer this idea because the government has such a wonderful track record at managing money and not because they want to grab several trillion dollars for their own use. And don’t you know, it would be unfair to only give the annuities to those of us who actually saved for our retirement. Oh, heavens no. They’ll give annuities to everyone to spread the wealth around.
Should they even get to the point of holding a vote on this idea, blood will flow. It would be the biggest wealth grab in US history since we stole the country from the Indians.
because the government has such a wonderful track record at managing money
Compared to the private sector, it does. Private retirement plans go bust regularly, while Social Security mails checks like clockwork. Most SS beneficiaries get most of their income from SS, and a large fraction (23% of married couples, 46% of unmarried retirees) get 90% of their income from SS.
SS was intended to be a supplement to a person’s personal retirement plan. It is just an arbitrary payout by the government whereas 401ks depend on your life time contributions and market performance.
Comparing the government’s ability to print money against the ability of a person to build wealth in the private sector is like comparing the validity of string theory and taste of taco seasoning.
Seizing people’s retirement funds to create a duplicate SS program is an incredibly bad idea and if it happened people would still want a private retirement plan of their own so that they could have some control over their retirement than counting on the whims of politicians.
Comparing the government’s ability to print money against the ability of a person to build wealth in the private sector is like comparing the validity of string theory and taste of taco seasoning.
No, it isn’t. Policy makers have to make this comparison. George W. Bush and Paul Ryan proposed moving money out of SS and into privately-controlled investments in 2005. They were saying that you could compare the two, and that one was better, at least for their definition of better.
I think that Bush and Ryan were wrong, and that the country as a whole would be better off if we had higher SS taxes and benefits, and less reliance on private savings for retirement. I think that such a change would reduce elderly poverty and raise median retirement income. But I agree with Bush and Ryan that it’s a comparison that can and should be made.
“I think that Bush and Ryan were wrong, and that the country as a whole would be better off if we had higher SS taxes and benefits, and less reliance on private savings for retirement. I think that such a change would reduce elderly poverty and raise median retirement income. ”
That’s because you are a sucker for the broken window fallacy. Bastiat had your number over a hundred years ago.
Why do you think the government is better able to handle your money than you are?
Well ok maybe in YOUR case they are, since you seem to have no concept of economics.
But for the rest of us, we are much better able to handle our own property than the government is and would prefer it not be stolen at the point of a gun.
And the economy would be worlds better off if that money stayed in their owner’s hands and was therefore used to create more wealth for more people.
And if the economy was better, and more wealth created, then retirement funds would be better, sounder, ore numerous.
And there would be no SS fund to raid for things like war – which you dislike – or stupid lib-dem plantation maintenance programs which I dislike.
Why do you think the government is better able to handle your money than you are?
Look at the stats: 46% of unmarried retirees are getting 90% of their income from Social Security. Clearly the government is better able to provide secure retirement income than a huge swath of the population.
Clearly the government is better able to provide secure retirement income than a huge swath of the population.
Bullshit and more bullshit.
The government is better able to “provide income’ in the same way the mob is able to “provide income”. Social Security is the government using government guns to extract money from some to give to others only because they exist and aged before I did.
So no, the government is not “providing a stable income” because it is taking part of my income that I would use for my own retirement account to give to others. It is threatening my own retirement for the purpose of funding those now who are retired.
Yes, this means Social Security is an evil, morally wrong program that should have never have been started in the first place. This is the evil with government wealth redistribution schemes. It makes everybody a criminal and victim at the same time. “When I get old, I will steal from you for my retirement. But don’t worry, I promise that you can steal from the next guy down when you get old”.
In a more free society neither you or I would steal each other’s money for either of our retirements. We would each keep our own money. Those that couldn’t provide for themselves would fall back on the traditional American safety net: their own families, charities and churches.
See, this is the liberal malfunction. Liberals think there was no safety net prior to the New Deal. There has always been a safety net in this country since the Founding. It just wasn’t until the early 1900′s that the government started “providing” the safety net.
So, the answer to “well, you just want to throw grandma to the wolves by repealing Social Security”, is “no, I want them to fall back on the safety net that existed prior to the government taking it over”.
And guess what, if you are so concerned about the less fortunate, then you and all your liberal friends can create as many charities as you want and give as much of your income as you want to those charities. No government guns pointed at me are required.
Social Security is still the world’s largest legal Ponzi Scheme. The checks will keep going until they can’t. If any private pension fund operated in that manner, their corporate officers would quickly be in jail.
Public sector pension funds are one of the biggest debt bombs dragging down government at all levels.
The federal government itself is over $16 trillion in debt and adding about a trillion dollars a year to the total. If you count the unfunded liabilities, the debt is many times larger than that.
But tell me again how well the government is managing money. I enjoy a good laugh.
Bullshit.
The government’s “ability to pay” is based on nothing more than pointing a government gun at somebody. Meaning Social Security is old people making young people pay for the old people’s retirement at the point of a government gun. And this is based on the promise that the young people will be able to have the gun that they can point at the next young people when the current young people become old.
The 401k’s ability to pay is based on your own private decisions about investments you decide you make over your own lifetime. No government guns are pointed at anybody.
So, you can’t compare the two and say the government option is better because the government option is morally wrong to begin with, since it requires forced redistribution of wealth from me for the only purpose that someone else exists and is old.
“The government’s “ability to pay” is based on nothing more than pointing a government gun at somebody.”
I figure the left can be divided between those who fail to grasp that point, and those who feel that such force is acceptable when exercised for their benefit.
I, too, could have a no-fail track record on a pension plan if I was allowed to print and/or steal all the money I needed to keep it running.
Naturally what you like to forget is how much wealth was NOT created, and also how many times the SS fund was raided by the government to pay for things YOU don’t like.
It’s the spending, stupid!
Nope
Not sure how you square that with $6t in added debt over four years. Spending isn’t just a metric of raw dollar amounts but should also be considered in relation to our revenues or spending beyond our means.
“Obama 2009 2013 1.4″
So Obama only spent 1.4% more in 2013 than he did in 2009 with TARP and the Stimulus which were supposed to be one time things. Wow…
Why do you even bother using Politifact when they have been debunked for their partisan hackery time and time again?
Since the Senate has refused to do their job and create a budget for the last 4 years, they’ve ran the government on a series of continuing resolutions. Those resolutions used the last passed budget as the baseline. That budget included the “one time” stimulus. That extra spending is now part of the budget baseline.
That’s how DC works. It’s corrupt to the core.
Could you sadists stop scaring Jim? The mere spectre of an idea that he and his ideological gang could be deprived of their ability to spend other people’s money is enough to give him the shivers.
Spending isn’t just a metric of raw dollar amounts but should also be considered in relation to our revenues
You are confused. Spending is spending. Revenues are revenues. Deficits/surpluses are the difference between the two. If your concern is deficits and debt, then it isn’t “the spending, stupid”, it’s “the difference between spending and revenues, stupid.”
So Obama only spent 1.4% more in 2013 than he did in 2009 with TARP and the Stimulus which were supposed to be one time things. Wow…
An example of “argument by personal incredulity”. If you actually read the article, you will see where that 1.4% figure comes from (hint: it isn’t the percentage spending increase from 2009 to 2013). “Wow” is not a counter-argument.
Why do you even bother using Politifact when they have been debunked for their partisan hackery time and time again?
You don’t understand the figures in the article, but you’re upset by “partisan hackery”? Physician, heal thyself.
It most certainly is. And this problem has been building up for much longer than the current administration’s tenure.
The federal government spends far more money than current revenues or decades of future revenues can cover. That has to end, or there will be a comeuppance. Being in the same boat as Europe and Japan is not a good idea, and it may still be barely avoidable. Given that we have something those countries don’t–massive military expenditures–our crash could be all the more epic.
Ok Jim, if Nope, how come every deficit Obama has rans has been twice as large as nay a predecessor has ever ran?
Nobody before Obama ran a deficit over a Trillion dollars. Nobody.
Expalin that.
I can explain it “liberal style, “Mr. Puckett. One: Shut up. And two: BUSH!!!!
Notice how Jim REFUSES to address the Trillion plus deficits considering Obama owns EVERY ONE of them!
You forgot “RACIST!” No liberal reply to criticism of Obama is complete without calling someone a racist.
A government that robs Peter to pay Jim can always count on the support of Jim.
Nobody before Obama ran a deficit over a Trillion dollars. Nobody.
Expalin that.
Three explanations:
1. It isn’t true. The 2009 deficit was $1.3T before Obama even took the oath of office, four months into the 2009 fiscal year. That one belongs to Bush.
2. Nominal measures of the deficit are meaningless, it’s fraction of the size of the economy that matters. A number of presidents have run much bigger deficits as a fraction of GDP (see this chart).
3. Pro Libertate’s comment was “it’s the spending, stupid.” But deficits are the difference between spending and revenue, and in 2009 we saw a collapse in revenue bigger than any seen since the Great Depression. Obama would have seen record deficits without any changes in discretionary spending.
Jim, we were under a CR untill March of 09. The FY-09 Budget belongs 100% to Obama.
Jim, we were under a CR untill March of 09. The FY-09 Budget belongs 100% to Obama.
You’re contradicting yourself. If the Bush CR ran through the first six months of FY-09 (10/08-9/09), Obama can’t be 100% responsible for the FY-09 deficit.
The FY-09 deficit was going to top $1T no matter who was elected in 2008.
“Nope”
Hahahahahah they used CBO estimates. When, Jim, will you realize that they are forced to accept Obama assumptions and therefore, count medicare cuts twice (for example)?
Hahahahahah they used CBO estimates
Hahahahahah the only projection they used was for the rest of fiscal 2013, which is already half over. Please recalibrate your “reply with tired CBO talking point” machine.
“Hahahahahah the only projection they used was for the rest of fiscal 2013, ”
hahahahaha any 6 month economic estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
2) Politifact is hardly an unbiased outlet (hint: they are heavily biased towards your hero as are the AP and WP which your biased politifact leans upon
3) To borrow 40% of the money you spend and then claim you don’t have a spending problem is, not to put too fine a point on it, lunacy.
Your hero gripes about a lousy 2% cut…..to say that the Feds cannot cut 2% without hurting anything of importance is, also, lunacy.
Please recalibrate your thought process with unbiased facts and not blog blatherings from biased buffoons.
On top of which
any 6 month economic estimate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on
That 6 months comprises 1/8 of the period in question. Go figure out how much the projection would have to be off to change the overall conclusion (hint: Obama would have to get the GOP Congress to approve more spending hikes for the next six months than it has for the last four years).
Politifact is hardly an unbiased outlet
Who cares? They showed their work. You can do the math yourself.
To borrow 40% of the money you spend and then claim you don’t have a spending problem is, not to put too fine a point on it, lunacy.
And yet the linked article shows that Obama increased spending more slowly than every president since Eisenhower. So if Obama has a spending problem, it’s less of a problem for him than for all of his recent predecessors. Maybe the collapse in federal revenue had something to do with the deficit?
to say that the Feds cannot cut 2% without hurting anything of importance
They aren’t cutting 2% of everything, since some of the biggest things (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty programs) are exempt. So the things that are cut, are cut by more than 2%. Of course that’s going to hurt some things of importance.
For example, the NIH it looking at a 5% cut this year, and 8% in following years. They typically fund 5-year grants. They don’t want to cut grants that are already underway, so they have to apply this year’s 5% cut to the 20% of their grant portfolio that starts this year. That means a 25% cut in new research grants (5/20). In following years it will be a 40% cut (8/20). Now either medical research is unimportant, or that will hurt.
A reduction of a proposed increase is not a cut Jim.
Depends on the size of the cut relative to the increase, considering both in real, per-capita dollars.
Baloney. The only way it’s an actual cut is if it’s more than 100% of the increase. When has that ever happened.
Obama is a lawyer. They don’t admit they are wrong unless unabashedly proven so by someone who’s willing to say they are wrong and not issue a retraction the next day. Without a media that can seriously turn the screws on him and shrink away from his wounded bird routine then he’ll never change his stance on things.
I mean “he is wrong” instead of “they are wrong”.
Private retirement plans go bust regularly
All plans go bust regularly. But all plans can’t steal from taxpayers to cover it up. This is why people diversify.
To claim that government does a better job flies in the face of facts.
The government guarantees poverty for the masses, because that makes them easier to control. Stealing from private retirement savings is outrageous. Tar, meet feathers.
All plans go bust regularly.
The US government hasn’t ever gone bust. It’s the safest investment in the world, which is why people pay the US Treasury for the privilege of holding their money.
Is there any safer longterm bet than the U.S.?
To claim that government does a better job flies in the face of facts.
I think it flies in the face of your prejudices. Name another retirement program that has served as many people, as reliably, for as long, as Social Security.
The US government hasn’t ever gone bust.
Of course it has, many times. It just doesn’t seem like it because they get to change the rules.
Name another retirement program
You fail to see the unseen for the seen. It’s a bad program (and I could list why.) It would be illegal if not for the government saying otherwise.
Of course it has, many times.
Name one.
It’s a bad program (and I could list why.)
The American electorate strongly disagrees with you.
It would be illegal if not for the government saying otherwise.
LOL. Yes, it’s true that laws, created by government, determine what is and isn’t legal.
The American electorate strongly disagrees with you.
I certainly can’t speak for all of them like you can, but many are simply afraid because it’s all they have. Are you trying to tell me none of them would like something better?
Let me just give you one thing… why would the government take away some or all of this retirement benefit of a person works to supplement it?
If this isn’t meant as a boot on the neck, what is it?
Jim, just imagine that the bureaucrat in charge of [your retirement/ your health care / your kids' education/ whatever] is… Me. Did a shiver go down your spine?
Part of the problem is that engineers and others that must rationally deal with the real world don’t go into politics.
I’m an engineer and business owner, so it certainly feels like I have to rationally deal with the world. You’re suggesting I go into politics?
it certainly feels like I have to rationally deal with the world
We understand Jim. You feel rational… but rational is about thinking, not feeling. How are those shivers?
Obama would have seen record deficits without any changes in discretionary spending.
Which to any competent manager means, “tighten the belt.” But to Obama means, “Double down.”
Do you think Casinos allow double down on blackjack because it benefits the customer?
Which to any competent manager means, “tighten the belt.”
Please name one national political figure you’d consider a competent manager. Remember than in late 2008, when it was clear that the 2009 deficit was going to be huge, the leadership of the Republican party (George Bush, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain) all supported a deficit-increasing stimulus bill. For that matter, they did the same thing in 2001. Both parties believe in counter-cyclical deficit spending, at least when they’re in charge and being judged on the state of the economy.
There was this governor from AK that sold off things like the former governors private plane and ran a surplus with an approval rating in the 90s until the media decided she was a threat. I’m sure there were others.
George Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain… Mandarins all (why didn’t you include Bob Dole?)