So what? They are still just a tax, what makes them any different from any other federal expenditure funded by taxes? To fix the issues you just need to cut spending to where you always have a balanced budget including paying off the ridiculous amount of debt you've already put on future generations.
They are not part the deficit or debt at this moment, so do not put them in that group at the moment, and they can be fixed. In fact SSN have been helping the debt for decades.
BTW - Why is VET SPENDING not part of the Military Budget? If i recall correctly. . . Reagan did that so he could give the illusion that he was cutting military spending but really just moved a portion of it to another location Rocket River
Social Security, Employment and Labor plus Medicare and health plus housing and community. Yeah they really are, they are still taxes and money that could be better spent elsewhere. When they represent 60% of total federal spending.....that's a problem especially since they don't really work very well. Vet spending isn't military spending, that's why.
Do you understand what you are saying? Are you suggesting that if we do not have SSN and medicare we would still have these tax revenue? Do you mean we remove SSN and medicare but keep taxing the people as if they still have these? :grin:
Wait. . . how are Social Security, Medicare, etc entitlements WHEN I PAY INTO IT EVERY CHECK??? What is Employment and Labor? If it is Unemployment - That is something that is collected also Vets benefits are benefits paid for Military service. It is Military related expenses. Using that logic . .. I could pull corn subsidies out of The Ag budget and say well . . it's just not Agriculture Rocket River
Why not? It was just a massive tax hike for the general fund....that's how they made it constitutional and kept it from being struck down by SCOTUS like most of the other programs they were starting at the time. Well there are different kinds of entitlements Social Security and unemployment are contributory entitlements where things like food stamps are non-contributory. It's significantly different though, the difference being that it's not money set aside for national defense. it's set aside to take care of those who served. I see your point, but I think it's rightfully separate.
Do not know what to say if you believe we should eliminate SSN and medicrare but keep the tax for them. I am just glad you are not in charge of this country.
If you want to save social security simply make it so that those earning over $30K a year in any kind of income start losing eligibility for social security benefits the more income they make. Or if you have over a million in assets.
The whole point was that the nearly 1.3 trillion dollars they spend per year on it could better be spent elsewhere. The country would be stronger not spending over 2 trillion dollars a year on social security and medicare programs that don't really work.
In Texas it depends on what kind of engineer you are. A computer engineer? Come to Austin and get all the work you can handle with our 2.9% unemployment. A petroleum engineer? Might be getting tough given the current circumstances, but that isn't my field. If things are rough, and I know they are in the oil patch, thank our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
That wouldn't be a bad idea financially if we also liquidated their assets and pension funds. It would help tide short sighted blood lettings from the financial markets.
Before going into any details, I would start any discussion of how to "fix" the country by beginning with the idea we desperately NEED to move power and money away from the Federal Government and send it to State and local governments. There are several reasons. 1. The Constitution is pretty explicit in what it does allow the Federal Government to do...and the list is pretty small actually. The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories: 1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce; 2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal; 3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS; 4) Copyright protection; 5) Coining money; 6) Establishing post offices and post roads; 7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures; 8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions. 2. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. 3. Government is (generally) more accountable (i.e. efficient) close to home where the representatives live amongst the people they represent and answer to. In short, a lot of things the Federal Govt does, isn't explicitly authorized by the Constitution. In fact, it explicitly states they belong elsewhere...with the States and the people. And furthermore, not only shouldn't they be doing it, but I would argue the states and local communities (the people) have and will do these things better because accountability is easier the closer to home you are.
Social Security was not meant to be a fund for the impoverished. Its suppose to be a savings account for those who contributed. Another Sweet Lou Liberal '**** the middle class' solution.
How about you just start changing the retirement age? It's not that hard. And for what it's worth Bush's plan to invest some in the market (bonds or stocks) would have been a good idea.
In terms of benefits to the elderly, I think Medicare is a bigger concern than Social Security payments to individuals. While Social Security is impacted by a higher proportion of elderly projected over time, Medicare is impacted both by aging trend and the increased cost of medical care, which really outstrips overall inflation. Pushing back the retirement age to, say, 67, will help some, but in terms of Medicare, the 65-67-year-olds are likely the healthiest and least expensive of covered individuals so I am not sure how much saving we'll get overall. In any case, the healthcare cost in the U.S. is just way higher than the rest of the world. Here's an article discussing the situation and what other countries are doing: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
I don't think you understand - the Bernie Bros are educated. Increasing immigration of all types does not "fix" anything with the education system - it only sweeps things under the rug. The US has a large number of uneducated immigrants as well. Not sure how that "fixes" the education system nor do I see how taxation does so.
I really wish people would quit talking about running government like a business. I say this as someone who owns a small business that runs very tight overhead and is virtually debt free. If things get really bad I can declare bankruptcy and fold the business. The government can't do that. Further the nature of business is to serve a narrow set of interests and to generate profit. Government has to serve a very broad group of interests and certainly isn't to generate a profit. As a business I can raise my prices in response to demand, we just raised our rates this year given that there is a lot of demand for our services. Government makes it's money from taxes, fees, and fines. Given that many of those people who argue that government should be run like a business also argue that government should cut taxes, reduce regulation resulting in less fees and fines shows the inherent difference between government and business. Finally the Constitution isn't the same thing as articles of incorporation for a business. The separation of powers and difference between the states and the federal government would be disastrous to the operation of a large or small business.
