OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Cuts need to be made to the SSD an SSI programs. I believe these programs are in whole or part funded from FICA taxes which also funds the OASDI program (all are Social Security Admin programs).

I know a couple of handfuls of able-bodied American adults of working age that have collected $1800-$3000 mo SSD for many years. My OASDI benefit (if its still there when I’m old enough to claim it, lol) won’t be anywhere near that. If mine and my employers’ original contribution on my behalf will not even be available for me, I think it is only fair to pay me the lump sum now.

And I don’t think recent immigrants should be eligible for SSI benefits. They didn’t feed anything into the system, entered the US at an advanced age and their sponsors swore to the INS on affidavits to support them for life as a condition of their legal residence in this country.

IMO, Social Security reform needs to be undertaken ASAP. It’s a ponzi scheme in which benefits will likely not be available in the future except to maybe the first five years of baby boomers . . . for a limited time.[/quote]

SSI is entirely funded through the general fund. SSD through the SS fund.

And I agree with you entirely that SSD needs to be tightened up. It is way too easy to qualify.

But I reject the whole ponzi scheme. It is a defined benefit plan, that is projected to be fully funded, without any changes, until 2039. THe just ended recession and continued unemployement has knocked about 4 years off that estimate. (It was 2043 until a couple years ago.) That will take the oldest baby boomers thru about age 95, the youngest to about 75. A 1% increase in FICA taxes would extend it indefinitely, as would uncapping the FICA taxes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.[/quote]

Umm…yes, it has everything to do with getting rid of the debt. The only way to get rid of the debt is to have a budget surplus. You can’t have a surplus until the budget deficit is removed.

And yes, you’re right there’s still another 1/2 a trillion to go if defense spending goes to zero. (A suggestion that no one has made.) Put America back to work and more than 80% of that half a trillion goes away. The recession, due to decreased revenues, has added around $400 billion to the deficit each of the last 2 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.[/quote]

Umm…yes, it has everything to do with getting rid of the debt. The only way to get rid of the debt is to have a budget surplus. You can’t have a surplus until the budget deficit is removed.

And yes, you’re right there’s still another 1/2 a trillion to go if defense spending goes to zero. (A suggestion that no one has made.) Put America back to work and more than 80% of that half a trillion goes away. The recession, due to decreased revenues, has added around $400 billion to the deficit each of the last 2 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.[/quote]

Umm…yes, it has everything to do with getting rid of the debt. The only way to get rid of the debt is to have a budget surplus. You can’t have a surplus until the budget deficit is removed.

And yes, you’re right there’s still another 1/2 a trillion to go if defense spending goes to zero. (A suggestion that no one has made.) Put America back to work and more than 80% of that half a trillion goes away. The recession, due to decreased revenues, has added around $400 billion to the deficit each of the last 2 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
It is the other spending, primarily defense, that has to be cut. The two wars we’re fighting have already consumed almost 10% of the national debt, over $1 trillion. Current defense budget is close to $700 billion. That’s where the cuts will have to come from if the budget is ever to be balanced.[/quote]

Just to nitpick in case you’re a product of LAUSD, you could cut 100% of the defense budget and you still have another 1/2 trillion to go to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is nothing to do with actually getting rid of the debt.[/quote]

Umm…yes, it has everything to do with getting rid of the debt. The only way to get rid of the debt is to have a budget surplus. You can’t have a surplus until the budget deficit is removed.

And yes, you’re right there’s still another 1/2 a trillion to go if defense spending goes to zero. (A suggestion that no one has made.) Put America back to work and more than 80% of that half a trillion goes away. The recession, due to decreased revenues, has added around $400 billion to the deficit each of the last 2 years.

[Author]

Posts