In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Question was asked impartially, as well:
All Adults: "Below is a list of different areas of federal government spending. For each, please indicate if you would favor a major cut in spending, a minor cut, no cut at all, or would you increase spending in this area?"
Social security payments (emphases are mine):
Favor Cut, NET%: 12
MAJOR cut: 4%
MINOR cut: 8%
Oppose Cut, NET%: 80
No cut in spending: 50%
Increase in spending: 31%
Not at all sure: 8%
Conservatives have an incredibly steep hill to climb on Social Security.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by dixonownsyou 20 months ago
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Right, it's political suicide to show the reality of the situation. When social security was implemented, the average life expectancy was 62 and the collection age was 65. Now, people live to be nearly 80 and we give out benefits at 67. Same with medicare -- we used to be on the hook for 4 years, life expectancy was 69 and benefits started at 65, now we're at 80.
The other major thing is the return social security gets on the money invested. It ends up being less than if someone just invested in government bonds. The government needs to allow people to opt out and tax the income they make off of the stocks and bonds they choose, and fund the people who don't want to do it on their own.
My favorite part on the polling article I listed: "The only programs of the 20 listed in the poll that majorities of Americans want to cut are foreign economic aid (79%), foreign military aid (74%), subsidies to business (57%), spending by regulatory agencies (56%), the space program (52%) and federal welfare spending (52%)."
I'd need one of our budget people to run the exact numbers, but what's the estimate on those programs' COMBINED portion of the budget? 4%? 5?
Also, fuck you, space!
This is exactly what I was mentioning in a prior post and is why Obama won. People don't want cuts to things that affect them. They just want cuts to smaller programs and think that will be enough to fix our finances. They don't understand that doesn't even come close to making up the gap we have.
Go away, KA!
This brings me back to the point I made last night...obviously a lot of this stuff is going to be unpopular; that's the nature of welfare and entitlements. Government giveth, government taketh away.
The point is to do the unpopular thing for the good of the country. I fully expect a lot of people will be voted out of office because of what they'll vote for in the next 6 months. I guess it's a matter of which politicians have their priorities straight.
Like I said last night, this is probably one of the most advantageous times to do this sort of thing, election-wise.
Bingo. If they told me today I could have half of the money I've paid in to invest for myself, I'd drop out of the program in a heartbeat. Never take a dime out of it. I can beat 75bps in my sleep for return.
It would be very easy. Set up a new class of retirement accounts that are outside the current broker dealer/investment advisor model on mandatory arbitration if something goes wrong. Limit the amount of products available (Russell 2000, BBB or better individual fixed income, no leveraged mutual funds, no margin, no options.) You tell the SEC and FINRA that their regulatory structure has to change for these specific accounts, a univeral numbering system and weekly feeds from the broker dealers (or DTC/SIAC for that matter). Any misuse of the money and firm is out of business, don't care if its' Merrill/BofA or a small IA shop. BD/IA's are on the hook for complete restitution of the customer.
Right, not that there aren't cuts that can be made to many government programs but I think most people think "oh just cut some waste and a few unneeded programs." They don't realize that that saves billions, when we need to be looking at trillions. For the last 60-70 years we've had bipartisan agreement on the government providing more and more stuff it can't afford to provide and we've just about reached the limit. People are going to have to feel some pain if we want to avoid being Japan or France or worse.
I think we're all still waiting for a response to this post.
It's fairly popularized that it's one of the things that crushes the middle class. The average family pays all this money into SS, and only receives around $250k from SS. Investing in an average rate of return for the stock market would net around $750k for that same family. Tax it at 33% and you've covered one family that didn't invest in anything with $250k and you've doubled the retirement account for the family that invested. It's a win-win.
But what about all that terrible economic growth that such a massive boost in investment would create? oh....wait.
Reading this discussion, I'm preemptively wincing, waiting for Joe Biden to start shouting over you two and about how you're wrong and god have mercy on your soul for suggesting people be given the option of investing their SS since that's what happened any time it came up in the debate
This post was edited by neal990 20 months ago
That's because its stupid. Nothing solves this problem all by itself. Its a strawman argument.
You're right, probably better to just print money and sell the government bonds to social security and medicare. Then we can increase taxes to pay for it all.
Anyone who thinks the Federal Government NEEDS more revenue is a lost cause. Raising taxes will do virtually nothing, and there is evidence to show that lowered rates has the potential to actually increase revenue.
Also Mitt Romney is totally ahead in the polls.
Okay then, you get your increase in the top bracket.
You're the one that said there isn't really a problem here right? Stupid? Riiiiiight.
I never supported Romney, he wasn't going to cut a thing.
The government's budget deficit in 2009 was $1.5 trillion. Many have suggested raising taxes on the rich to cover the difference between what the government collected in revenue and what it spent. Is that a realistic solution? Economics professor Antony Davies uses data to demonstrate why taxing the rich will not be sufficient to make the budget deficit disappear. He says, "The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget." Instead, it's time to work on legitimate solutions, like cutting spending.
Find LearnLiberty on...
Our Website: http://bit.ly/RBl3FH
Yeah, the Dems are little too obsessed with the highest tax bracket's rate, and less concerned with what will actually work. We don't have a lack of revenue.
In fact, that should be Boehner's main argument here...the problems we have simply dwarf whatever rate increase you're going to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's a non-starter but the Dems are ideologically hell bent on it, so whatever.
Dems seemed to think the middle class tax rates under Clinton were OK back then, so why wouldn't they be OK with returning to them now? Was the Clinton budgets & surplus accomplished on the backs of the middle class?
See, we can play the tax rate game all day. What I'm more concerned with is a solution that satisfies the math, not an ideology.
You forgot the fall over in his chair laughing routine as well. But, he's too busy at Costco making an ass out of himself now that he's got four more years.
In some ways they were, depending on how many middle class folks exercised stock options during the internet boom and then got crushed by the AMT. That's where all the revenue came from, not sure if you classify those folks as middle class, but I bet most of them were before they cashed in. Worked great then, but not so much now with 10M unemployed.
I would raise all rates to the Clinton era rates permanently, as well as payroll taxes. People want entitlements, so they should pay for them.
If Republicans came to the table after the election and said the Ryan budget is their opening offer, would you have called that a "serious offer" because obviously they'll just negotiate down from that?
Are you going to cut all the hidden Obamacare taxes then? Because the people getting the "free" healthcare aren't paying for it.
This post was edited by sohlman6 20 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports