Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are expendable to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan – or at least that's what their budget says. Among the hardest hit areas for cuts is the...
Suddenly, an Obama electoral vote landslide is looking like a possibility. This may be the final straw in the evangelical-capitalist coalition that has served as the base of the GOP since Reagan won in 1980.
While I wouldn't go as far as saying Ryan wants to throw grandma off the cliff. I don't think people realize the profound change in these social programs they want to do. I've put into this system for more than 30 years and it would afect me as well.
The people who have paid in for years will lose their money. Romney and Ryan will give it away to millionaires with more tax breaks that WE CANT AFFORD!
This is really going to be an election about what kind of country we want. Do we want to borrow money from China to give it to millionaires - and cut of health care for seniors and retirees? Not to mention all the cuts student loans, infrastructure, teachers, cops, clean air, clean water, unemployment insurance, etc.
Romney-Ryan represent severe change with the elimination of all safety nets. There will be millions of people thrown into poverty. We will become a 2 class society more like a 3rd world country.
1. Obama if he wins will raise taxes on Middles class starting next year. 2. This is a President that said he would cut the debt in half by the end of his first term. He has accumulated more debt in 3 three years than all of the previous 42 Presidents combined. 3. What Romney and Ryan are trying too avoid is for the nation to become like California. Buried in debt for decades because all of the mismanagement by Liberals and all of the Union thuggery that takes place.
When a sitting President has no record to run on, they must rely on character assasination and misinformation.
Ryan's plan does not affect current seniors or anyone who is 55 an older. Ryans plan attempts to address the problem that Obama has not addressed and tries to save the program for future generations. Obama has pulled has already pulled 712 Billion from the program to try and pay for another disaster called Obamacare.
If anything this pick will assure that Romney will pick up many key Midwest sates like Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio.
Yes it does affect current seniors - the ones in nursing homes. Where are these people going to go when Romney-Ryan cut off their Medicaid money?
As for the 712 billion - more misinformation. This money does not come from cuts in coverage - it comes from savings from fraud and abuse - like unnecessary tests, etc.
THE UNFORTUNATE FACTS ABOUT THE REPORT ABOVE IS THAT NONE OF IT IS TRUE.
REDHANDED ABOVE IS 100% CORRECT. OBAMA AND CO ARE NOT CURING THE PROBLEM, JUST THROWING GASOLINE ON THE FIRE. YOU CAN'T SPEND WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THE CREDIT CARDS HAVE BEEN MAXED OUT. THE BANK SHUT DOWN YOUR CREDIT. YOU ARE SPENDING $100,000 ON AN $18,000 INCOME FOR A JOB THAT OBAMA PURCHASED FOR YOU FOR $9 MILLION.
And the US taxpayer is paying for your $9 million job that pays you $18,000 per annum from which you are spending $100,000. Are you getting the math yet? You cannot spend what you don't have.
HERE ARE THE FACTS about RYAN and the facts are the very opposite of what itobin and the Obama Disinformation Machine has reported:
And what about the tax cuts for the rich? Where do u think that money is coming from? Answer: Romney will borrow money from China to give it to the rich. That's because the Romney-Ryan plan, despite its job-killing cuts, does not balance the budget for 27 years.
"It is simply a fact that the United States government is now on track for an unprecedented fiscal disaster — with debt quickly surpassing the size of our GDP and reaching twice that size in the coming decades, crushing any chance for robust growth. It is also a fact that the rising cost of Medicare is at the very heart of that disaster. The program has been growing far faster than the rest of the federal budget for decades, and the trend is only set to accelerate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare spending as a share of the economy is five times what it was in 1970, while all other federal spending combined (excluding interest) is 1.1 times what it was. By 2035, CBO expects Medicare costs to be nearly twice what they are today as a share of the economy, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline somewhat as a share of the economy. The debt problem is a Medicare problem."
You could want whatever you want or desire.
Someone has to pay for it.
Someone else because you can't.
The problem: Someone else doesn't have the money either and can't pay for it.
Accordingly, you won't get Medicare because there's no money to pay for it.
Obama's solution is to pay for it until the money runs out.
Ryan's solution is to make minor modifications to funding Medicare so the money won't run out.
Grandma and grandpa can sleep peacefully, their Medicare won't be affected. For the younger set, the modification will make sure that when they get to grandma's and grandpa's age, they too can sleep peacefully, for their Medicare will have been fully funded and secure.
The links above prove that what is written here is the absolute truth.
The Democrat's MediSCARE strategy is designed to buy your votes.
If you understand the issues, they won't be able to.
And Romney's solution to our debt issue is to borrow more money from China and give it to rich people - since his tax cuts for the rich add 4.5 TRILLION to the debt PLUS another $4.9 TRILLION in ADDITIONAL TX CUTS- all for the top 1%.
They need a calculator because all agree their numbers simply do not add up.
"It is simply a fact that the United States government is now on track for an unprecedented fiscal disaster — with debt quickly surpassing the size of our GDP and reaching twice that size in the coming decades, crushing any chance for robust growth. It is also a fact that the rising cost of Medicare is at the very heart of that disaster. The program has been growing far faster than the rest of the federal budget for decades, and the trend is only set to accelerate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare spending as a share of the economy is five times what it was in 1970, while all other federal spending combined (excluding interest) is 1.1 times what it was. By 2035, CBO expects Medicare costs to be nearly twice what they are today as a share of the economy, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline somewhat as a share of the economy. The debt problem is a Medicare problem."
You could want whatever you want or desire.
Someone has to pay for it.
Someone else because you can't.
The problem: Someone else doesn't have the money either and can't pay for it.
Accordingly, you won't get Medicare because there's no money to pay for it.
Obama's solution is to pay for it until the money runs out.
Ryan's solution is to make minor modifications to funding Medicare so the money won't run out.
Grandma and grandpa can sleep peacefully, their Medicare won't be affected. For the younger set, the modification will make sure that when they get to grandma's and grandpa's age, they too can sleep peacefully, for their Medicare will have been fully funded and secure.
The links above prove that what is written here is the absolute truth.
The Democrat's MediSCARE strategy is designed to buy your votes.
If you understand the issues, they won't be able to.
She was disabled in her old age, paid taxes and was entitled to her benefits. What she railed against is not taking care of people who fall through the holes, but those who game the system until it self-destructs. For example, today's Democrats. And the former, extinct, Soviet Union.
Greeneink, perhaps you'd be wiser had you read her books, especially her INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY.
For I sincerele doubt that you actually understand the last two words of the above sentence. Never mind her ENTIRE philosophy.
1. The US Post Office. Is it going broke? 2. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Did they go broke? 3. Social Security? Is it going broke? 4. Medicare. Is it going broke? 5. Medicare. Is it going broke?
I rest my case.
Ayn Rand's books are growing in sales BECAUSE her programs have not been followed.
The REASON we are in trouble economically is BECAUSE her programs and ideals have been ignored.
The REASON the welfare states around the world collapsed economically is BECAUSE Rand's ideas were rejected. Amazingly, it was none other than the Soviet and other communists states in Europe that RAND herself has rejected.
What the American People don't realize is that RAND, an escapee as a your girl from the Communists, knew, is that she has seen this play before!
Because she has seen this play before, she had spent her life warning others of what will come down. Do you want to know?
The Politics of Envy and Resentment speak louder than all the words in Huffington Post.
What the rich do with their money is not your business.
The tax breaks the rich get is not your business either.
They had paid those taxes in the first place and you had not.
If the rich get a tax refund, it was their money in the first place, not yours. And because of that fact, they SHOULD have more say in it than you have. I ask you:
Am I to be more concerned with what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine iTobin?
IN OTHER words, Obama did what can be done to bankrupt MEDICARE as much as the DemonCrats have done to bankrupt Fannie and Freddie - the entire mortgage establishment, as they have bankrupted Social Security by dumping what was supposed to have been a trust fund into General Revenue, as well as taxing Social Security - all DemonCrat programs. Google it, you'll find it.
The Democrats have succeeded in impoverishing the American People and are well on their way to bankrupting the nation.
Very simple solution: Uncap the OASDI tax at the current rate for the first $1 million earned rather than just the first $110,100. Then the Bush-era income tax breaks could stay in place for all income levels. Raise the tax on Medicare Hospital Insurance to 1.75 percent instead of 1.45 percent, with the increase in revenues earmarked specifically for Medicare.
After the first $1 million in income earned, lower the OASDI tax to 2 percent and the HI tax to 1 percent for all income. Keep the current income tax structures in place. This would be a fair tax in the truest sense of the term in that the rich would pay their fair share without being "soaked" by so-called liberals looking to take care of the less fortunate.
The sad thing about the two-party system is that people begin thinking there are only two viable solutions to a given problem, unless the Ds and Rs are in agreement. Then the people are led to believe the choice is between the proposed solution and no solution at all.
As a progressive-minded libertarian, I am absolutely opposed to the dismantling of the Social safety net in order to put more money in the offshore accounts of the wealthy. At some point, ideology has to acknowledge reality. The sooner the better.
Yes, I have no problem with the idea of safety nets for Americans provided that the funding Congress agreed to (they being the representatives of the people - the People's Will if you must) are not altered later making an insurance plan that was funded into something else that was not funded.
In other words, I am against unfunded mandates iTobin.
For example, social security was once a TRUST fund. Now it is paid for out of general revenue. That distinction is everything, as SS is now an unfunded mandate, rather than an insurance plan that once had adequate reserves to cover its insured.
Accordingly, what no longer is working needs to be addressed with common sense. A financial plan that will work.
Taking partisan politics out of the equation, Paul Ryan designed a restructuring of these unfunded mandates that today can pay no one, or has difficulty doing so, so that with some pain they will pay everyone into the foreseeable future.
if you are against unfunded mandates then you would demand the repeal of the bush tax cuts. we are borrowing money from the chinese and giving it to millionaires who are doing nothing at all to create jobs with their money.
SS and Medicare can be easily and fully funded by removing the payroll caps as Punditty mentioned above.
There is no deficit crisis if the tax code is adjusted to be fair. Why should high earners get a discount when paying into the system? They don't take less out when they use it.
I'm afraid that's not so if you don't want to rob those who pay taxes in the first place. Tax cuts are imposed on those who pay taxes. You cannot give tax cuts to those who do not.
Tax refunds are meant for those who pay taxes, not for those who do not. People who produce income pay taxes. Those who do not produce do not pay taxes. It is immoral to punish those who produce to benefit those who do not produce.
The borrowing therefore has nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. Moreover, the borrowed money is not "given" to the rich. The tax cuts only mean that the rich are not penalized more, rather than less. Of less is more. They can keep what was theirs in the first place.
Moreover, one has nothing to do with the other. It is not the fault of the well to do that SS and Medicare are unfunded. It is the fault of those who decided to end the trust provisions, defund the entitlement programs or which SS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!, and dump both into the general reserve. They happen to be the Democrats.
SS is an insurance program, not an entitlement program. Meidcare is an insurance program supposedly paid for out of worker's and business taxes.
What is "FAIR" is your view may not be fair in another's. US business with all its shelters is paying the highest taxes among western and industrialized nations. Accordingly, the people who own these businesses (meaning stockholders too) pay the highest taxes in the world.
Fair enough for you?
High earners, contrary to the narrative that you believe, are not getting a discount. The top 5% in 2002 AFTER the Bush cuts paid almost 60% of income taxes. After the so-called tax cuts, the unfair tax cuts, 5% of Americans are paying the taxes for 51% who pay no taxes at all.
The top 1% paid 34% of the rest...leaving 6% for 95% of Americans.
And you want them to pay more iTobin? Is that your notion of FAIR?
I'm afraid that's not so if you don't want to rob those who pay taxes in the first place. Tax cuts are imposed on those who pay taxes. You cannot give tax cuts to those who do not.
Tax refunds are meant for those who pay taxes, not for those who do not. It's a return of their money.
People who produce income pay taxes. Those who do not produce do not pay taxes. It is immoral to punish those who produce to benefit those who do not produce. Most people who begin to understand this concept would call it theft. Robbery.
The borrowing therefore has nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. It has to do with not enough revenue in a society that punishes the producers and rewards the deadbeats. They are the deadbeats who do not produce, and consequently are not carrying the load others have been paying for. In other words, those who consistently demand that the rich pay more, are not paying THEIR FAIR SHARE!
And they are the deadbeats who make demands of others who owe them nothing.
Moreover, the borrowed money is not "given" to the rich. The tax cuts only mean that the rich are not penalized more, rather than less. The borrowed money does not go to the rich, therefore your assertion makes no sense.
The rich, accordingly, can keep MORE OF what was theirs in the first place - PROPERTY, MONEY that was never yours.
Moreover, one, borrowing to pay for government, and two, tax cuts, returning what is not government's, has nothing to do with the other. It is not the fault of the well to do that SS and Medicare or any other entitlements are not funded.
It is the fault of those who decided to end the trust provisions, and the trust itself, who had actually defunded the entitlement programs or which SS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!, and dumped both into the general reserve. They happen to be the Democrats and this mess we find ourselves in is ALL their fault.
By removing the trust, they had effectively defunded the programs they had instituted!
SS is an insurance program, not an entitlement program. Meidcare is an insurance program and not an entitlement program supposedly paid for out of worker's and business taxes. Actuarialized, there would be a consistent revenue stream if - and this if is the key - 51% of Americans would not be taking, but producing; and the Democrats had not defunded these programs by their greed to use the money that was streaming into the trusts.
What is "FAIR" in your view may not be fair in another's. US business with all its shelters is paying the highest tax rates among western and industrialized nations. Accordingly, the people who own these businesses (meaning stockholders too) pay the highest taxes in the world.
Fair enough for you?
High earners, contrary to the narrative that you believe, are not getting a "discount." You are getting a discount!
The top 5% in 2002 AFTER the Bush cuts paid almost 58% of income taxes. After the so-called tax cuts, the unfair tax cuts, 5% of Americans are paying the taxes for 51% who pay no taxes at all.
The top 1% paid 34% of the rest...leaving the rest of us to pay for 51% of Americans who pay nothing.
And you want them to pay more iTobin? Is that your notion of FAIR?
Lastly, I ask anyone with your mindset. Let's say I earn that maximum amount Obama defined, $250,000. I'm eating at fine restaurants, driving nice cars, wear Rolexes, several of them.
What do I owe you? Tell me. And then tell me why I owe you anything. What have you done for me so I need to pay you?
Let's say you're a soldier fighting for our freedoms, then yes, in my taxes I need to pay him. But what have you done for society that I would need to pay you?
A very big expense in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the cost of paperwork and employment that gets money collected and decided who gets what when. This can be done locally within families and communities. Costs of lengthy hospital stays or nursing homes can be greatly lessened by family members at home IF we choose God's garden paradise lifestyle instead of glorified slavery for a lifetime. All we need is people at home to oversee our elderly or afflicted etc. They are still productive and helpful saving parents time and adding supervision even as they recover with fresh foods, sunshine and light exercise.
The bottomless pit we call employment and security is glorified slavery that keeps wanting more from us, often to correct a previous decision. We can only have a garden paradise lifestyle and God's wisdom ruling our nation as written in the Bible IF we speak up proudly to our president and leaders and refuse to use the world system; we can save a lot of our money. Time is short. We cannot delay. God can give us His new candidate once we make the decision. He gives us free choice.
If you want to add your voice and contribute to this existing news event, use the event code
(Event Code: @12772855), that you will find on each news event page, as the first word of the
SMS or MMS message followed by a space then add your contribution (text, image or video). For example:
@12772855 This is an amazing video of Greg Norman hitting a hole-in-one in Sydney, Australia.
The first word of the message should be @12772855 (event code), to make sure the system attaches
your voice to the right news event.
This beta report credibility rating is intended to help our community sort through uncensored citizen media reports. For more information, see the Report Credibility section in our FAQ
Comments
This is really going to be an election about what kind of country we want. Do we want to borrow money from China to give it to millionaires - and cut of health care for seniors and retirees? Not to mention all the cuts student loans, infrastructure, teachers, cops, clean air, clean water, unemployment insurance, etc.
Romney-Ryan represent severe change with the elimination of all safety nets. There will be millions of people thrown into poverty. We will become a 2 class society more like a 3rd world country.
1. Obama if he wins will raise taxes on Middles class starting next year.
2. This is a President that said he would cut the debt in half by the end of his first term. He has accumulated more debt in 3 three years than all of the previous 42 Presidents combined.
3. What Romney and Ryan are trying too avoid is for the nation to become like California. Buried in debt for decades because all of the mismanagement by Liberals and all of the Union thuggery that takes place.
When a sitting President has no record to run on, they must rely on character assasination and misinformation.
If anything this pick will assure that Romney will pick up many key Midwest sates like Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio.
As for the 712 billion - more misinformation. This money does not come from cuts in coverage - it comes from savings from fraud and abuse - like unnecessary tests, etc.
Paul Ryan's Budget plan received 213 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate.
Obama's Budget Plan received 0 votes in House and 0 votes in Senate.
I think you can gather from this that the extremist position as far as budgets is clearly Obama's plan.
REDHANDED ABOVE IS 100% CORRECT. OBAMA AND CO ARE NOT CURING THE PROBLEM, JUST THROWING GASOLINE ON THE FIRE. YOU CAN'T SPEND WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THE CREDIT CARDS HAVE BEEN MAXED OUT. THE BANK SHUT DOWN YOUR CREDIT. YOU ARE SPENDING $100,000 ON AN $18,000 INCOME FOR A JOB THAT OBAMA PURCHASED FOR YOU FOR $9 MILLION.
And the US taxpayer is paying for your $9 million job that pays you $18,000 per annum from which you are spending $100,000. Are you getting the math yet? You cannot spend what you don't have.
HERE ARE THE FACTS about RYAN and the facts are the very opposite of what itobin and the Obama Disinformation Machine has reported:
Return of Medi-Scare
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313785/return-mediscare-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin
NEXT is Obama's Debbie Wasserman-Schultz debating Paul Ryan - see for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=F8T_m3ERkH8
Paste the links above into your browser's address bar!
Answer: Romney will borrow money from China to give it to the rich. That's because the Romney-Ryan plan, despite its job-killing cuts, does not balance the budget for 27 years.
"It is simply a fact that the United States government is now on track for an unprecedented fiscal disaster — with debt quickly surpassing the size of our GDP and reaching twice that size in the coming decades, crushing any chance for robust growth. It is also a fact that the rising cost of Medicare is at the very heart of that disaster. The program has been growing far faster than the rest of the federal budget for decades, and the trend is only set to accelerate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare spending as a share of the economy is five times what it was in 1970, while all other federal spending combined (excluding interest) is 1.1 times what it was. By 2035, CBO expects Medicare costs to be nearly twice what they are today as a share of the economy, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline somewhat as a share of the economy. The debt problem is a Medicare problem."
You could want whatever you want or desire.
Someone has to pay for it.
Someone else because you can't.
The problem: Someone else doesn't have the money either and can't pay for it.
Accordingly, you won't get Medicare because there's no money to pay for it.
Obama's solution is to pay for it until the money runs out.
Ryan's solution is to make minor modifications to funding Medicare so the money won't run out.
Grandma and grandpa can sleep peacefully, their Medicare won't be affected. For the younger set, the modification will make sure that when they get to grandma's and grandpa's age, they too can sleep peacefully, for their Medicare will have been fully funded and secure.
The links above prove that what is written here is the absolute truth.
The Democrat's MediSCARE strategy is designed to buy your votes.
If you understand the issues, they won't be able to.
They need a calculator because all agree their numbers simply do not add up.
"It is simply a fact that the United States government is now on track for an unprecedented fiscal disaster — with debt quickly surpassing the size of our GDP and reaching twice that size in the coming decades, crushing any chance for robust growth. It is also a fact that the rising cost of Medicare is at the very heart of that disaster. The program has been growing far faster than the rest of the federal budget for decades, and the trend is only set to accelerate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare spending as a share of the economy is five times what it was in 1970, while all other federal spending combined (excluding interest) is 1.1 times what it was. By 2035, CBO expects Medicare costs to be nearly twice what they are today as a share of the economy, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline somewhat as a share of the economy. The debt problem is a Medicare problem."
You could want whatever you want or desire.
Someone has to pay for it.
Someone else because you can't.
The problem: Someone else doesn't have the money either and can't pay for it.
Accordingly, you won't get Medicare because there's no money to pay for it.
Obama's solution is to pay for it until the money runs out.
Ryan's solution is to make minor modifications to funding Medicare so the money won't run out.
Grandma and grandpa can sleep peacefully, their Medicare won't be affected. For the younger set, the modification will make sure that when they get to grandma's and grandpa's age, they too can sleep peacefully, for their Medicare will have been fully funded and secure.
The links above prove that what is written here is the absolute truth.
The Democrat's MediSCARE strategy is designed to buy your votes.
If you understand the issues, they won't be able to.
Greeneink, perhaps you'd be wiser had you read her books, especially her INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY.
For I sincerele doubt that you actually understand the last two words of the above sentence. Never mind her ENTIRE philosophy.
1. The US Post Office. Is it going broke?
2. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Did they go broke?
3. Social Security? Is it going broke?
4. Medicare. Is it going broke?
5. Medicare. Is it going broke?
I rest my case.
Ayn Rand's books are growing in sales BECAUSE her programs have not been followed.
The REASON we are in trouble economically is BECAUSE her programs and ideals have been ignored.
The REASON the welfare states around the world collapsed economically is BECAUSE Rand's ideas were rejected. Amazingly, it was none other than the Soviet and other communists states in Europe that RAND herself has rejected.
What the American People don't realize is that RAND, an escapee as a your girl from the Communists, knew, is that she has seen this play before!
Because she has seen this play before, she had spent her life warning others of what will come down. Do you want to know?
http://tinyurl.com/92ycx3e
What the rich do with their money is not your business.
The tax breaks the rich get is not your business either.
They had paid those taxes in the first place and you had not.
If the rich get a tax refund, it was their money in the first place, not yours. And because of that fact, they SHOULD have more say in it than you have. I ask you:
Am I to be more concerned with what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine iTobin?
Obamacare ALREADY will cover C and D and the Bush Prescription Plan also covers parts of them.
Moreover, a great number of former employees still have coverage for parts of Medicare and that's why they don't even need C and D.
I'm holding my breath.
OBAMA ROBBED MEDICARE TO PAY FOR OBAMACARE - RYAN
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/romney-ryan-health-care/2012/08/12/id/448326?promo_code=EB8D-1&utm_source=nationalreview&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
IN OTHER words, Obama did what can be done to bankrupt MEDICARE as much as the DemonCrats have done to bankrupt Fannie and Freddie - the entire mortgage establishment, as they have bankrupted Social Security by dumping what was supposed to have been a trust fund into General Revenue, as well as taxing Social Security - all DemonCrat programs. Google it, you'll find it.
The Democrats have succeeded in impoverishing the American People and are well on their way to bankrupting the nation.
After the first $1 million in income earned, lower the OASDI tax to 2 percent and the HI tax to 1 percent for all income. Keep the current income tax structures in place. This would be a fair tax in the truest sense of the term in that the rich would pay their fair share without being "soaked" by so-called liberals looking to take care of the less fortunate.
The sad thing about the two-party system is that people begin thinking there are only two viable solutions to a given problem, unless the Ds and Rs are in agreement. Then the people are led to believe the choice is between the proposed solution and no solution at all.
As a progressive-minded libertarian, I am absolutely opposed to the dismantling of the Social safety net in order to put more money in the offshore accounts of the wealthy. At some point, ideology has to acknowledge reality. The sooner the better.
In other words, I am against unfunded mandates iTobin.
For example, social security was once a TRUST fund. Now it is paid for out of general revenue. That distinction is everything, as SS is now an unfunded mandate, rather than an insurance plan that once had adequate reserves to cover its insured.
Accordingly, what no longer is working needs to be addressed with common sense. A financial plan that will work.
Taking partisan politics out of the equation, Paul Ryan designed a restructuring of these unfunded mandates that today can pay no one, or has difficulty doing so, so that with some pain they will pay everyone into the foreseeable future.
It is said no gain without pain.
So it seems.
SS and Medicare can be easily and fully funded by removing the payroll caps as Punditty mentioned above.
There is no deficit crisis if the tax code is adjusted to be fair. Why should high earners get a discount when paying into the system? They don't take less out when they use it.
Tax refunds are meant for those who pay taxes, not for those who do not.
People who produce income pay taxes. Those who do not produce do not pay taxes. It is immoral to punish those who produce to benefit those who do not produce.
The borrowing therefore has nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. Moreover, the borrowed money is not "given" to the rich. The tax cuts only mean that the rich are not penalized more, rather than less. Of less is more. They can keep what was theirs in the first place.
Moreover, one has nothing to do with the other. It is not the fault of the well to do that SS and Medicare are unfunded. It is the fault of those who decided to end the trust provisions, defund the entitlement programs or which SS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!, and dump both into the general reserve. They happen to be the Democrats.
SS is an insurance program, not an entitlement program. Meidcare is an insurance program supposedly paid for out of worker's and business taxes.
What is "FAIR" is your view may not be fair in another's. US business with all its shelters is paying the highest taxes among western and industrialized nations. Accordingly, the people who own these businesses (meaning stockholders too) pay the highest taxes in the world.
Fair enough for you?
High earners, contrary to the narrative that you believe, are not getting a discount. The top 5% in 2002 AFTER the Bush cuts paid almost 60% of income taxes. After the so-called tax cuts, the unfair tax cuts, 5% of Americans are paying the taxes for 51% who pay no taxes at all.
The top 1% paid 34% of the rest...leaving 6% for 95% of Americans.
And you want them to pay more iTobin? Is that your notion of FAIR?
Tax refunds are meant for those who pay taxes, not for those who do not. It's a return of their money.
People who produce income pay taxes. Those who do not produce do not pay taxes. It is immoral to punish those who produce to benefit those who do not produce. Most people who begin to understand this concept would call it theft. Robbery.
The borrowing therefore has nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. It has to do with not enough revenue in a society that punishes the producers and rewards the deadbeats. They are the deadbeats who do not produce, and consequently are not carrying the load others have been paying for. In other words, those who consistently demand that the rich pay more, are not paying THEIR FAIR SHARE!
And they are the deadbeats who make demands of others who owe them nothing.
Moreover, the borrowed money is not "given" to the rich. The tax cuts only mean that the rich are not penalized more, rather than less. The borrowed money does not go to the rich, therefore your assertion makes no sense.
The rich, accordingly, can keep MORE OF what was theirs in the first place - PROPERTY, MONEY that was never yours.
Moreover, one, borrowing to pay for government, and two, tax cuts, returning what is not government's, has nothing to do with the other. It is not the fault of the well to do that SS and Medicare or any other entitlements are not funded.
It is the fault of those who decided to end the trust provisions, and the trust itself, who had actually defunded the entitlement programs or which SS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!, and dumped both into the general reserve. They happen to be the Democrats and this mess we find ourselves in is ALL their fault.
By removing the trust, they had effectively defunded the programs they had instituted!
SS is an insurance program, not an entitlement program. Meidcare is an insurance program and not an entitlement program supposedly paid for out of worker's and business taxes. Actuarialized, there would be a consistent revenue stream if - and this if is the key - 51% of Americans would not be taking, but producing; and the Democrats had not defunded these programs by their greed to use the money that was streaming into the trusts.
What is "FAIR" in your view may not be fair in another's. US business with all its shelters is paying the highest tax rates among western and industrialized nations. Accordingly, the people who own these businesses (meaning stockholders too) pay the highest taxes in the world.
Fair enough for you?
High earners, contrary to the narrative that you believe, are not getting a "discount." You are getting a discount!
The top 5% in 2002 AFTER the Bush cuts paid almost 58% of income taxes. After the so-called tax cuts, the unfair tax cuts, 5% of Americans are paying the taxes for 51% who pay no taxes at all.
The top 1% paid 34% of the rest...leaving the rest of us to pay for 51% of Americans who pay nothing.
And you want them to pay more iTobin? Is that your notion of FAIR?
Lastly, I ask anyone with your mindset. Let's say I earn that maximum amount Obama defined, $250,000. I'm eating at fine restaurants, driving nice cars, wear Rolexes, several of them.
What do I owe you? Tell me. And then tell me why I owe you anything. What have you done for me so I need to pay you?
Let's say you're a soldier fighting for our freedoms, then yes, in my taxes I need to pay him. But what have you done for society that I would need to pay you?
The bottomless pit we call employment and security is glorified slavery that keeps wanting more from us, often to correct a previous decision. We can only have a garden paradise lifestyle and God's wisdom ruling our nation as written in the Bible IF we speak up proudly to our president and leaders and refuse to use the world system; we can save a lot of our money. Time is short. We cannot delay. God can give us His new candidate once we make the decision. He gives us free choice.