The Bush-"Legacy"

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah.....Safety was Priority ONE, during the Bush Years.

​

"This week news surfaced that the North Carolina syringe factory, AM2PAT Inc., which knowingly distributed tainted syringes, operated for almost two years without a federal inspection despite a series of complaints that its needles were dirty or filled with colored particles, reports the Associated Press."

 

[PLC1]

Just one o' the many benefits of tax-cuts!!!!

​

Concrete fell off of a bridge because of tax cuts? I fail to see the cause and effect, here. Perhaps if you had said that siphoning off gas tax money, that is supposed to be a fee we pay to maintain highways and bridges, for other purposes, such as making the budget appear to be at least a little less unbalanced than it really is, caused a shortage of money to be used for bridge maintenance, then I could see your point, but tax cuts? No, I don't think so.

 

[Andy]

Maybe he's ignorantly trying to claim a need for the stealfromus package or something. Of course only 3% of the $800 billion is going to roads and bridges. Not to mention most locals already get block grants for such projects.

Here's a thought. Cancel welfare for a month, and use the money to repair the bridges.

 

[HankHill]

Maybe he's ignorantly trying to claim a need for the stealfromus package or something. Of course only 3% of the $800 billion is going to roads and bridges. Not to mention most locals already get block grants for such projects.

Here's a thought. Cancel welfare for a month, and use the money to repair the bridges.

On top of that, reign in the billions of dollars wasted on health care for illegal aliens every year!

 

[PLC1]

Good plan, or better yet, just use money collected in gas taxes to support roads and bridges. That way, the money will be used for the legitimate purpose for which it is collected, and we'll have plenty of money to keep the roads and bridges in repair. Who knows? Maybe we'd be able to lower the gas tax, and still build and maintain roads, how about that?

While we're at it, let's take Social Security out of the general fund, and only use it to pay retirees. That should put a scare into the big spenders in Washington. It is supposed to be a retirement plan, after all.

 

[Andy]

Good plan, or better yet, just use money collected in gas taxes to support roads and bridges. That way, the money will be used for the legitimate purpose for which it is collected, and we'll have plenty of money to keep the roads and bridges in repair. Who knows? Maybe we'd be able to lower the gas tax, and still build and maintain roads, how about that?

While we're at it, let's take Social Security out of the general fund, and only use it to pay retirees. That should put a scare into the big spenders in Washington. It is supposed to be a retirement plan, after all.

Better yet, let's allow opt-out of Social Security. Cancel welfare, and use that to pay for roads and bridges. Eliminate the gasoline tax completely.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Concrete fell off of a bridge because of tax cuts? I fail to see the cause and effect, here.

Repairing/rebuilding infrastructure can be done, for free....huh?

You've been listening to Porky Limbaugh, too much.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cancel welfare, and use that to pay for roads and bridges.

Have you figured-out how to finance your crematoriums, yet?​

 

[Andy]

Have you figured-out how to finance your crematoriums, yet?​

Sorry, I don't support Communistic slaughters. You need to ask Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all the other cruel dictators whose policies Obama is trying to implement.

 

[PLC1]

Repairing/rebuilding infrastructure can be done, for free....huh?

You've been listening to Porky Limbaugh, too much.

​

And you didn't listen to me at all.

 

[PLC1]

Better yet, let's allow opt-out of Social Security. Cancel welfare, and use that to pay for roads and bridges. Eliminate the gasoline tax completely.

There are a couple of problems with opting out of SS at this point. You can argue that we should never have started the program in the first place, of course, but now we have people who have paid into the system for decades, and now really are entitled to the money that they have put in. Some are counting on that money as a supplement to their retirement, especially now that so many have lost half or more of their private retirement accounts.

Further, the government uses that money to pay for other programs. It would not only have to pay the people who have put into the system, but it would have to collect taxes somewhere else, or cut back spending, in order to make up the difference.

SS more than pays for itself by payroll taxes.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a ripoff, of course, because the government has been stealing from the fund for decades, but it would be even worse to say to those who have been forced to pay for so long, "Sorry, Charlie. No money left.

No, the best solution is to take the money out of the general fund, where no more of it can be stolen. That way, the retirees who have a legitimate claim won't see their dollars totally wasted.

 

[chestnut]

Repairing/rebuilding infrastructure can be done, for free....huh?

You've been listening to Porky Limbaugh, too much.

​

Shaman. The roads and bridges were funded for 2 times each with a 6 year windows starting in 2001 I believe. That money hasn't even been spent yet. It's only been 8 years.


All americans pay plenty in taxes for everything
The government just does a bad job of making sure the funds go to where they are supposed to. Look at the way they couldn't keep track of the first 350 bil tarp funds. How about social security.


Not to mentionre the "pork" spending.

None of that "pork" spending is budgeted, therefore it has to be siphoned off from a program that has real merit, and then the government says, we need to steal more from the citizens.

If theses senators want "pet projecs" let them fund it themselves. There are very few congressman and senators that are not multi-millionaires and few who aren't millionaires.


http://blog.progressivedem.com/2008...made-wealthier-by-paluson--perps.aspx?ref=rss

 

[Andy]

There are a couple of problems with opting out of SS at this point. You can argue that we should never have started the program in the first place, of course, but now we have people who have paid into the system for decades, and now really are entitled to the money that they have put in. Some are counting on that money as a supplement to their retirement, especially now that so many have lost half or more of their private retirement accounts.

Further, the government uses that money to pay for other programs. It would not only have to pay the people who have put into the system, but it would have to collect taxes somewhere else, or cut back spending, in order to make up the difference.

SS more than pays for itself by payroll taxes.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a ripoff, of course, because the government has been stealing from the fund for decades, but it would be even worse to say to those who have been forced to pay for so long, "Sorry, Charlie. No money left.

No, the best solution is to take the money out of the general fund, where no more of it can be stolen. That way, the retirees who have a legitimate claim won't see their dollars totally wasted.

The Social Security "trust fund" is on a purely technical level, a separate fund. Legally speaking, it is already a completely separate system. Now back in the LBJ days, the government wanted to increase spending on social programs, but didn't want this to show up as massive deficits. So LBJ implemented what was called a "unified budget". This meant they lumped all taxes together as income including Social Security.

Of course this set off the Social Security defenders, and suddenly we had to separate the accounts, and move it "off budget". Well politicians are crafty little scum bags, and they came up with a nifty idea that both made it look like there was a hefty "trust-fund" for Social Security, and at the same time, not have a massive jump in the deficit.

They kept a "trust-fund" for Social Security surpluses, but they had the Treasury buy special government savings bonds with the money, as a 'safe investment' for the trust fund. This was pretty simple to do since the Department of the Treasury controls Social Security, Government Bonds, and the General Fund. So the left hand, barrows from the right, and everyone is happy.

So perhaps you are wanting Social Security to stop buying Government bonds. Not going to happen. The moment they do that, the government deficits will double, and cause a huge backlash against which ever party is in power. Further, a trust fund has to invest the money somewhere, and a safe investment is the only one they will do. They will not invest in the stock market, obviously, and we already know what a bad idea buying bonds from foreign governments is. We already saw the insanity when Bush dared to give people the option to invest just a portion of their SS in a fund of their own choice. Besides, government is all about power and control. They are not going to give that up easily.


But none of that changes the fact that no matter how you cut it, either it will at some point crash, or become useless. In either case, at some point, an entire generation will lose their entire lifes investment into the Ponzi scheme.

When that happens it will be a much greater and larger economic crash, than if we do it now.

As we speak Social security has over $13.6 Trillion in unfunded obligations. What does that mean? That means that the expected pay out from existing obligations is $13.6 Trillion dollars more, than its current value plus future tax revenue at current rate of taxation. BTW, 'current value' is all the government bonds it assumes the federal government will repay, which at the rate the government is going, looks more and more dubious.

So even if we were to "separate it from the general fund", it would not matter. The ponzi scheme will crumble, it's just a matter of when.

 

[PLC1]

The Social Security "trust fund" is on a purely technical level, a separate fund. Legally speaking, it is already a completely separate system. Now back in the LBJ days, the government wanted to increase spending on social programs, but didn't want this to show up as massive deficits. So LBJ implemented what was called a "unified budget". This meant they lumped all taxes together as income including Social Security.

Of course this set off the Social Security defenders, and suddenly we had to separate the accounts, and move it "off budget". Well politicians are crafty little scum bags, and they came up with a nifty idea that both made it look like there was a hefty "trust-fund" for Social Security, and at the same time, not have a massive jump in the deficit.

They kept a "trust-fund" for Social Security surpluses, but they had the Treasury buy special government savings bonds with the money, as a 'safe investment' for the trust fund. This was pretty simple to do since the Department of the Treasury controls Social Security, Government Bonds, and the General Fund. So the left hand, barrows from the right, and everyone is happy.

So perhaps you are wanting Social Security to stop buying Government bonds. Not going to happen. The moment they do that, the government deficits will double, and cause a huge backlash against which ever party is in power. Further, a trust fund has to invest the money somewhere, and a safe investment is the only one they will do. They will not invest in the stock market, obviously, and we already know what a bad idea buying bonds from foreign governments is. We already saw the insanity when Bush dared to give people the option to invest just a portion of their SS in a fund of their own choice. Besides, government is all about power and control. They are not going to give that up easily.


But none of that changes the fact that no matter how you cut it, either it will at some point crash, or become useless. In either case, at some point, an entire generation will lose their entire lifes investment into the Ponzi scheme.

When that happens it will be a much greater and larger economic crash, than if we do it now.

As we speak Social security has over $13.6 Trillion in unfunded obligations. What does that mean? That means that the expected pay out from existing obligations is $13.6 Trillion dollars more, than its current value plus future tax revenue at current rate of taxation. BTW, 'current value' is all the government bonds it assumes the federal government will repay, which at the rate the government is going, looks more and more dubious.

So even if we were to "separate it from the general fund", it would not matter. The ponzi scheme will crumble, it's just a matter of when.

I see you have a good idea of how Social Security actually works. It's too bad more people don't, as they might just rise up and revolt at having 8% of their income taken from them and placed in such a ponzi scheme without having a choice in the matter.

Of course, if SS were to be ended, as I said above, the feds would have one less source of borrowed money. Therefore, it is unlikely that the system will be terminated unless it actually does crash.

The solution is to actually take it out of the general fund, invest the surpluses in something besides government debt, quit paying people who never paid in, and make it a genuine trust fund.

But, then, that's just an unrealistic dream. It is logical and workable, but not politically possible.

 

[Andy]

I see you have a good idea of how Social Security actually works. It's too bad more people don't, as they might just rise up and revolt at having 8% of their income taken from them and placed in such a ponzi scheme without having a choice in the matter.

Of course, if SS were to be ended, as I said above, the feds would have one less source of borrowed money. Therefore, it is unlikely that the system will be terminated unless it actually does crash.

The solution is to actually take it out of the general fund, invest the surpluses in something besides government debt, quit paying people who never paid in, and make it a genuine trust fund.

But, then, that's just an unrealistic dream. It is logical and workable, but not politically possible.

Yeah, pretty much, as long as it's under political control, it will always go where politics wants it too. The only way to make it an actual trust fund, is to take it out of government control. That's just not going to happen.

Oh and btw, it's not 8%, it's actually 15% of your income. Government did some accounting gimmicks on that end as well, to hide where the money is coming from.