Archive

Republican debates/primaries.

  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1789824 wrote:As sleeper stated, you will never pay off the debt, that is the fallacy.

    The only realistic way to tackle the deb is to cut the entitlements, reduce the size of the DOD budget, and to increase taxes and put those revenues to only tackle the debt.
    Given the size of entitlements, you cannot grow your way out of the debt.

    DO you think that leveling expenditures to match income should precede these steps?
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1789839 wrote:Do you want me to provide you with an Excel spreadsheet that would clearly show most people would have accumulated far more in SS assets by age 65, than they will ever pull out?
    No thanks.

    The real issue is, why did Boomers not change the current program? Boomers are greedy, selfish, pieces of shit and deserve nothing. Enjoy your cat food in retirement!
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1789841 wrote:Simply incorrect.
    Sorry dude, you're wrong. Boomers didn't pay enough in taxes. That's a fact. That isn't an opinion, that is FACT.

    You own it!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1789838 wrote:I would estimate that the federal government owns trillions of dollars worth of land, property, buildings, and equipment. Much of it they have no business owning. When the time comes to pay the piper, this would be the route to go, not to print more money and further impoverish The People. True "entitlements" (which would not include SS [except certain SS disability which is being highly abused]) could, and should, be slashed immediately by 30% --- there would hardly be a whimper. We could easily cut 5-10% everywhere else, again without nary a person noticing, and then institute a 5 year freeze from that point forward. The private sector takes these steps every day, unfortunately the public NEVER does. The jig is up.
    How much of that land is national parks?
    I'm sorry, but the national parks should largely stay national parks. You can maybe play with the margins, but overall, they should remain.

    Again, the DOD has been calling for what you are taking about, but Congress has refused to even consider it, both D and R. So, how the hell are you going to get it done without any Congressional support?

    And, you want entitlements slashed by 30%. Ok, tell me how that passes both Houses?
  • rrfan
    If we are going to worry about entitlements the list could get really long...I am not a boomer but don't think they are the major problem that sleeper does. I do agree that they were under taxed due to living longer and other things. However when I hear entitlements I don't think of boomers...
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1789842 wrote:DO you think that leveling expenditures to match income should precede these steps?
    Would be nice, but politically impossible.
    I would rather pass a law that says that all increases in taxes or even more generally, x amount of taxes go specifically to paying down the national debt. That way it makes sure no funds can be diverted.
    The two can be done at the same time.

    More broadly for all the talk about the debt, the only way to really tackle again is entitlement reform. That makes up the most debt. Everything else is just playing at the margins.
    Oddly enough, Cruz is the only one willing to tackle reducing entitlements.
  • Con_Alma
    If we only insist a portion of tax increases pay debt we don't solve the massive amount we spend. We take in plenty...we spend even more at an increasing rate.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1789853 wrote: Oddly enough, Cruz is the only one willing to tackle reducing entitlements.
    What's odd about that; he is as close to a real conservative as there appears to be.
  • QuakerOats
    Wait until interest rates normalize: even just 4% will be $800 billion in interest alone -- 25% of the budget.

    Political will be damned; the shit will hit the fan sooner or later and reality will take over.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1789844 wrote:Sorry dude, you're wrong. Boomers didn't pay enough in taxes. That's a fact. That isn't an opinion, that is FACT.

    You own it!
    I am not really a boomer, first of all.

    Second, your "facts" are wrong. Take one hypothetical example: worker starts out 43 years ago at $20,000 per year. Wages go up $1,000 per year, he contributes his 6.2% and the employer matches; total 12.4% set aside each year for SS. Amount set aside compounds at 6% per year, and at age 65 a $445,000 nest egg exists. The present value of a future 20 year stream of monthly payments of $2,800 per month discounted at 4.5% equals $445,000. Obviously there are several ways to look at it, but clearly enough has been set aside to provide for a decent benefit.

    Now if only BIG government hadn't taken the money and spent it elsewhere.
  • jmog
    ptown_trojans_1;1789853 wrote:Would be nice, but politically impossible.
    I would rather pass a law that says that all increases in taxes or even more generally, x amount of taxes go specifically to paying down the national debt. That way it makes sure no funds can be diverted.
    The two can be done at the same time.

    More broadly for all the talk about the debt, the only way to really tackle again is entitlement reform. That makes up the most debt. Everything else is just playing at the margins.
    Oddly enough, Cruz is the only one willing to tackle reducing entitlements.
    As of now, SS taxes still equal out to SS expenditures (roughly), so I don't see SS as the big spending/deficit problem.

    So, then, of the "big 3" that leaves Medicare/Medicaid and Defense.

    I am all for cutting the defense budget as I believe we are bloated there, but that is one thing that we can't go too far as it is the ONE thing the US Constitution actually spells out that the federal government is supposed to do.

    So, now we are talking Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare as the major source of budget cutting. I am all for it but good luck with that...you will see the liberals showing commercials of people pushing grandma off a cliff again.
  • sleeper
    rrfan;1789852 wrote:If we are going to worry about entitlements the list could get really long...I am not a boomer but don't think they are the major problem that sleeper does. I do agree that they were under taxed due to living longer and other things. However when I hear entitlements I don't think of boomers...
    ???

    Payments to 3 programs, SS/Medicare/Medicaid, are 63% of the federal government expenditures and growing.

    That's not a major problem to you?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1789855 wrote:If we only insist a portion of tax increases pay debt we don't solve the massive amount we spend. We take in plenty...we spend even more at an increasing rate.
    Agree actually. Should be a total mix of taxes and decrease in entitlements. Problem is both parties insist on one and not the other.
    Hence, we are in the mess we are in now.
    QuakerOats;1789856 wrote:What's odd about that; he is as close to a real conservative as there appears to be.
    The fact he is losing to Trump means to me, several things. 1. Conservatives are not as popular as we thought and 2. No one likes Cruz.
    QuakerOats;1789857 wrote:Wait until interest rates normalize: even just 4% will be $800 billion in interest alone -- 25% of the budget.

    Political will be damned; the shit will hit the fan sooner or later and reality will take over.
    Interest rates are not rising to 4% anytime soon. They may rise a .25 or .5 point in the next year or so. But, 4% is not coming anytime soon if you listen to Fed.
    Also, the markets would almost certainly take a hit if we rise interest rates that fast.

    Political be damned?
    That doesn't make sense cause that's not how the world works.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1789858 wrote:I am not really a boomer, first of all.

    Second, your "facts" are wrong. Take one hypothetical example: worker starts out 43 years ago at $20,000 per year. Wages go up $1,000 per year, he contributes his 6.2% and the employer matches; total 12.4% set aside each year for SS. Amount set aside compounds at 6% per year, and at age 65 a $445,000 nest egg exists. The present value of a future 20 year stream of monthly payments of $2,800 per month discounted at 4.5% equals $445,000. Obviously there are several ways to look at it, but clearly enough has been set aside to provide for a decent benefit.

    Now if only BIG government hadn't taken the money and spent it elsewhere.
    And the $19 Trillion in debt? That's stuff you bought that you ddin't pay for.

    Let the Boomers eat cake. You own it!
  • sleeper
    Anyways, no doubt we will have to drastically increase taxes in the future. Why not start now and let the Boomers, the ones who pushed us deep into debt, pay for it?

    We are either going to cut the Big 3 or we are going to tax the hell out of them. Enjoy retirement boomers!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    jmog;1789860 wrote:As of now, SS taxes still equal out to SS expenditures (roughly), so I don't see SS as the big spending/deficit problem.

    So, then, of the "big 3" that leaves Medicare/Medicaid and Defense.

    I am all for cutting the defense budget as I believe we are bloated there, but that is one thing that we can't go too far as it is the ONE thing the US Constitution actually spells out that the federal government is supposed to do.

    So, now we are talking Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare as the major source of budget cutting. I am all for it but good luck with that...you will see the liberals showing commercials of people pushing grandma off a cliff again.
    True on SS, it has leveled off for now.
    And, agreed on your last points. The big 3 need the fat cut, but I do not see how it will happen as the left will not allow it at all.
  • fish82
    I can't wait to retire, knowing that sleeper is paying for my single malt. :)
  • sleeper
    fish82;1789869 wrote:I can't wait to retire, knowing that sleeper is paying for my single malt. :)
    Naw, I'll make sure you get cake.

    I just want boomers to accept responsibility for the downfall of the greatest country ever built. That's all I want. We(millennials) will fix it; I just want the Boomers to know they messed up and to publicly state it.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1789862 wrote: The fact he is losing to Trump means to me, several things. 1. Conservatives are not as popular as we thought and 2. No one likes Cruz.

    Interest rates are not rising to 4% anytime soon. They may rise a .25 or .5 point in the next year or so. But, 4% is not coming anytime soon if you listen to Fed.
    Also, the markets would almost certainly take a hit if we rise interest rates that fast.

    Political be damned?
    That doesn't make sense cause that's not how the world works.

    I didn't say we were jumping right to 4%; I said when rates eventually normalize we are going to have an enormous problem. Multiply $20 TRILLION by any number you want - 2%, 4%, 6%, and you are looking at blowing up the budget with interest payments. Further, when the $20 trillion becomes $30 trillion and repayment becomes more and more questionable, they will have to offer higher rates to sell the debt.

    You might think the world works on political will, but the reality is, it all comes down to dollars and being able to pay the bill. Even the wusses in DC understand, though they hope the day of reckoning does not come during their term.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1789868 wrote:True on SS, it has leveled off for now.
    And, agreed on your last points. The big 3 need the fat cut, but I do not see how it will happen as the left will not allow it at all.
    The real problem with Medicaid/Medicare is they collected about 20% of the costs. It will be hugely unpopular and probably unfeasible as a result, but they need to raise that portion of Fica from 1.25% to about 6.2% (plus the employer match)....that will then put our FICA payments on par with the equivalent in Europe - we want Europe social safety nets, we just don't want to pay for it.
  • sleeper
    gut;1789879 wrote:The real problem with Medicaid/Medicare is they collected about 20% of the costs. It will be hugely unpopular and probably unfeasible as a result, but they need to raise that portion of Fica from 1.25% to about 6.2% (plus the employer match)....that will then put our FICA payments on par with the equivalent in Europe - we want Europe social safety nets, we just don't want to pay for it.
    Signed,

    Boomers.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1789870We(millennials) will fix it; I just want the Boomers to know they messed up and to publicly state it.[/QUOTE wrote:

    Millennials are in love with the socialist/communist running for prez. Has the world ever known that kind to rein in government spending? Too funny.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1789884 wrote:Millennials are in love with the socialist/communist running for prez. Has the world ever known that kind to rein in government spending? Too funny.
    We don't have a choice. We have the smartest generation ever to move through the path of life and we will fix it. We will also write history books describing in detail the trash that we call the Boomers and they will go down as the worst generation in US history.

    I prefer my legacy; I just hope the boomers are ready for theirs.
  • iclfan2
    sleeper;1789887 wrote:We don't have a choice. We have the smartest generation ever to move through the path of life and we will fix it. We will also write history books describing in detail the trash that we call the Boomers and they will go down as the worst generation in US history.

    I prefer my legacy; I just hope the boomers are ready for theirs.
    I'm of millennial age, but you're high. People are dumb as fuck now, as shown by safe zones, protesting any speech they disagree with, BLM, supporting Bernie, etc. Maybe if they ever get over the feelz, but the outlook isn't strong. Everyone feels like something should be handed to them now. Granted, the boomers raised these losers, so I'm not sure who to blame. Obviously there are normal hardworking millennials, but it seems like no one is up for being a ditch digger or electrician anymore. Everybody either has to be more, or give up and do nothing. I think there is a poster here (maybe Br) who continues to say they have openings that no one will fill, because everyone pretends their value is so much more than it actually is.
  • sleeper
    iclfan2;1789895 wrote:I'm of millennial age, but you're high. People are dumb as fuck now, as shown by safe zones, protesting any speech they disagree with, BLM, supporting Bernie, etc. Maybe if they ever get over the feelz, but the outlook isn't strong. Everyone feels like something should be handed to them now. Granted, the boomers raised these losers, so I'm not sure who to blame. Obviously there are normal hardworking millennials, but it seems like no one is up for being a ditch digger or electrician anymore. Everybody either has to be more, or give up and do nothing. I think there is a poster here (maybe Br) who continues to say they have openings that no one will fill, because everyone pretends their value is so much more than it actually is.
    There is trash in every generation. Your point?