What's going to be worse, RE bubble burst or medicare burst?

Someone needs a nap...

 

There is nothing wrong with the way Social Security was set up. The problem is that money was BORROWED from Social Security and NEVER PAID BACK.

You want to solve Social Security? Then all of the rest of the government budgets that borrowed money can PAY IT BACK with INTEREST. Then the government can STOP embezzling out of Social Security.

Problem solved.

Medicare? Well the first thing to do is to make it COMPETITIVE. I.E. restructure the drug component to allow for competitive pricing. Allow people to buy from Canada if the price is cheaper. (I don't see any Canadians dieing from taking their meds......made in the USA.) Why should Canadians pay less for U.S. made drugs than Americans.

Start there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 22 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]466626[/snapback]</div>

This is exactly correct! All those retired congresspersons who 'borrowed' from SS to balance their past budgets on the backs of future generations should be personally contributing to the repayment plan. Also, means testing whereby any year an eligible SS recipient makes over a certain amount forfeits their SS that year, AFTER they make back their original contribution. For some people SS is a lifeline. For others it's a fancy 'bonus' night out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 22 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]466659[/snapback]</div>

I do not agree with that. That would just change SSI to welfare. For instance, I worked hard for many years and actually put money into a 401k so therefore I do not deserve to get the SSI that was diligently taken out of my paycheck?

Keep in mind I'm 25 so I'm sure the SSI will be dry as a bone by the time I can collect. Guess I'm just S-O-L, eh?

Quite frankly, I wish we could chose not to get SSI. Like an Opt out or Opt in program rather than a government mandated program. If you know you can't manage your retirement than you opt in. If you would rather manage your own money and future money, then you opt out!

I'd like this opt out/opt in for a majority of government programs. PUBLIC SCHOOLS for one. If a school is not doing well then you just take your kids and your money elsewhere. I'm not saying that poor people don't deserve good education. I'm just saying that we should not have to keep our children in a school that is not working. Everyone gets a voucher, rich and poor people and can take it to any school they choose. Therefore causing the schools to get COMPETITIVE because they need your child (and their voucher) or they close up shop.

It's the same concept if you were forced to use the same dry cleaner, hair stylist, restaurant, etc and no matter how inept they were they still got paid. WITH YOUR TAX MONEY.

Okay, just my ideas. Hope I am not coming off as a raving loon.

 

Remember the "lock box" that Gore proposed?Coming off of Clintons term there was a budget surplus which should have easily taken care of SS and Medicare.
The Republicans were salivating at the opportunity to loot the treasury.
We went from a surplus in 2000 to a NINE TRILLION dollar debt at the end of Bushes 2nd term.Thats how SS and Medicare have been compromised.The money went for tax cuts to the super rich.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jun 23 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]466938[/snapback]</div>

Not only that, but the money we threw into the war on terror moneypit could have taken care of not only social security and medicare but education with enough left over to fund alternative energy programs to the extent that we would be independent of mideast oil.

Way to go, Bush. What a legacy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]466956[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. It's like when you have that dumb friend who always says how lucky you are to have nice things. When they make more money but blow it on stupid things like going out drinking or paying their bills late (late fees, interest, etc) or cigarettes. It's like well if you spent your money more wisely, you could have a nicer house too... Just like if we (US) had spent our money more wisely we could have a great country.

When I was younger (13 or so) I asked my aunt why she liked teaching. I was considering it along with of course veterinary medicine (haha). She gave me a whole ton of reasons. But then she said but make sure if you become a teacher that your husband has a high paying job because teaching is almost a negative income. She explained that she spent a lot of her own money on students and don't get paid much. HOW CRAPPY IS THAT?!

Okay, I need to get out of the house and away from this CHAT BOARD!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jun 23 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]466938[/snapback]</div>

What we need to do is close some of the loopholes.

The Tax Haven racket

""The tax haven racket is the biggest scam in the world. It's run by the international banks with the cooperation of the world's financial powers for the benefit of corporations and the mega-rich. [M]ost Americans, including progressive activist Americans, don't know what I'm going to tell you. And that's part of the problem.

"Tax havens, also known as offshore financial centers, are places that operate secret bank accounts and shell companies that hide the names of real owners from tax authorities and law enforcement. They use nominees, front men. Sometimes offshore incorporation companies set up the shells. Sometimes the banks do it. Often someone will use a shell company in one jurisdiction that owns a shell in another jurisdiction that owns a bank account in a third. That's called layering. No one can follow the paper trial."

""The other major purpose of offshore is for tax evasion, estimated to reach another $500 billion a year.

"That's how corporations and the rich have opted out of the tax system."

""The whole collection of tax scams is why between 1989 and 1995, of US and multi-national corporations operating in the United States, with assets of at least $250 million or sales of at least $50 million, nearly two-thirds paid no U.S. income tax.

"In 1996-2000, Goodyear's profits were $442 million, but it paid no taxes and got a $23-million rebate. Colgate-Palmolive made $1.6 billion and got back $21 million. Other companies that got rebates in 1998 included Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, MCI Worldcom, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum and Northrop Grumman. Microsoft reported $12.3 billion U.S income in 1999 and paid zero federal taxes. (In two recent years, Microsoft paid only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion pretax U.S. profits.)

"During the 1950s, U.S. corporations accounted for 28 percent of federal revenues. Now, corporations represent just 11 percent.

"Those unpaid taxes can buy a lot of politicians and power. When Nixon needed money to pay the Watergate burglars, he got it from some corporate offshore bank accounts.

"The system has given the big banks and corporations and the super-rich mountains of hidden cash they use to control our political systems.

"The offshore system must be dismantled.

"So why isn't the progressive movement doing something about this? This is a case where some people in Congress are ahead of the activists. There are a handful of Democrats like Senators Levin (MI), Dorgan (ND) and Conrad (ND), like Rep. Doggett (TX), who are speaking out and introducing legislation. But there is no movement behind them. And while Obama has signed onto the Levin Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, Clinton, Biden and Dodd have not.""

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]467078[/snapback]</div>

While this is all interesting, you have to remember that corporations don't pay taxes, their contomers do. Say Congress decides that all corporations are to pay a flat 20% tax. Fine, they pay the tax and raise their prices 20% and the who really pays in the end? It's the consumer that really pays. Taxing corporations is only done to make people feel good.

Me, I'm a big fan of the fair tax.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 23 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]467101[/snapback]</div>

And you think Corporations and the uber wealthy are paying their fair share by stashing billions off shore in tax havens so they can pay nothing....or maybe 1-2%. Meanwhile to make up the difference the middle class is paying over 30%.

That's fair?

Tell me how ANY tax reform will make it fair when corporations and the uberwealthy paying NOTHING.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2007, 10:27 PM) [snapback]467108[/snapback]</div>

Elect Ron Paul.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Jun 23 2007, 10:30 PM) [snapback]467109[/snapback]</div>

Oh no. Never. Absolutely not.

I'll vote for a Libertarian right after I vote for a Republican. Which will be right after hell freezes over.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2007, 10:40 PM) [snapback]467112[/snapback]</div>

Point is, you're more likely to see the IRS completely evaporate than see tax reform that will properly address your concerns.

 

RE bubble burst: I've seen lots of predictions on this, ranging from the optimistic to the pessimistic. What scares me most about the RE bubble burst is the sub-prime meltdown that is predicted to occur.

Medicare/Social Security: According to MSNBC (2005 report), Medicare's benefits exceeded program income in 2004, and will become insolvent in 2020. Social Security's benefits will exceed program income in 2017, and will become insolvent in 2041.

IMO, the Medicare/Social Security burst will be worse than the RE bubble burst. I say this because, in order to save these two programs, Congress will probably pass laws to "means-test" beneficiaries, or reduce benefits, which will bar millions of people who paid into these two programs from collecting all the benefits currently enjoyed by today's retirees.

For example, people who report $60,000 or more income on their tax returns might be ineligible for Social Security, and possibly Medicare. Or, if a person has health insurance other than Medicare, that could prevent him or her from enrolling in Medicare.

Taxes: I found an excerpt to the book "The Great American Tax Dodge", by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. So far, it seems to be a rather plausible explanation of what exactly is wrong with the present tax code. I plan to buy this book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jun 23 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]466938[/snapback]</div>

I think you have your facts messed up.

We have been running a national debt for years and years. Even under the Clinton administration we had a national debt. While they claim to have had a budget surplus, they were still raping and pillaging the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget. Bush wasn't the first to put us into debt, he won't be the last. That doesn't make his spending spree OK though.

Everybody benefited from the tax cuts, not just the super rich. If you don't want your share of the tax cut, I'm sure you could donate it back to the federal government.

Somebody else said we ought to pay the social security money back with interest. The money was used to buy special obligation bonds, which do pay interest. Unfortunately it is the American taxpayer that has to pay that interest. We owe over $1.7 trillion to this fund.

I've been quite disappointed with the lack of lack of financial responsibility with the current administration. And why they didn't make the tax cuts permanent is beyond me.

Both parties like developing money spending schemes to get elected. Bush had the stupid prescription drug plan. Great, medicare is already broke, lets spend more. Now the Dems what to do health care. The government is terrible at running programs. They always come in over budget, under funded, and don't work they way they say they will. We should tell them that we don't want them to take any more of our money for their pet projects.

I don't understand why it is illegal for a citizen to run a Ponzi scheme, but not for the federal government.

 

Now add over 12 million people who haven't and will never pay anything (at least in relation to the benefits they'll withdrawl) to those roles, that's sustainable!

Go Amnesty!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Jun 24 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]467234[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=9196]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Jun 24 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]467234[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=9196]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 23 2007, 03:30 PM) [snapback]466958[/snapback]</div>

So let me get this straight:
1. Teachers don't get paid enough.
2. A competitive, voucher system that allows money to leave the public school system will help. :blink:

Please, show me a business where competition means higher salaries for workers. Oh, but even the best companies in that business must compete for employees with many other fields of work where they could make 2-3 times as much money.