Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Bachmann’s Plan: To Deal With Debt, We Must ‘Wean Everybody’ Off Social Security, Med

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Bachmann’s Plan: To Deal With Debt, We Must ‘Wean Everybody’ Off Social Security, Med
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bachmann’s Plan: To Deal With Debt, We Must ‘Wean Everybody’ Off Social Security, Medicare

bachmann.jpgThis past weekend, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) addressed the right-wing Constitutional Coalition’s annual conference in St. Louis. She had dropped out of the Tea Party Convention occurring on the same day in Nashville to make the appearance.

Speaking to a small group of conference attendees and ThinkProgress during lunch on Saturday, Bachmann outlined how the Republican Party and its 2012 nominee must address the national debt. Bachmann referenced Glenn Beck, who falsely warned about a $107 trillion in supposed “unfunded liabilities” from Social Security and Medicare. She then called for a “reorganization” of entitlements where people “already in the system” would continue to receive benefits, but “everybody else” would be weaned off:

BACHMANN: Is the country too big to fail? No, the country can fail. We can, we’re not invincible. And we’re so close now to being at that point because the thing is, as Glenn Beck said last night, it is true. The $107 trillion that he put on the board. We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all. We have to do it simply because we can’t let the contract remain as they are because the older people are going to lose. So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is.

Bachmann is echoing a growing chorus in the GOP caucus. Recently, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced an alternative budget plan which would privatize both Medicare and Social Security. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo has noted, the type of private Social Security accounts Ryan proposes would have cost seniors tens of thousands of dollars in the 2008-2009 market plunge. But Bachmann takes Ryan’s effort a step farther and seems to be suggesting a full repeal of the retirement safety net.

Bachmann, who has gained influence within Republican leadership circles, was a star at the event. At his speech on Friday, Glenn Beck proclaimed that Bachmann was the only person he trusted in Congress. Other accolades for Bachmann were heard throughout the conference. At one point, Heritage Foundation scholar Matt Spalding, who had been whispering in Bachmann’s ear while other panelists spoke, exclaimed, “if there’s one person who everyone at Heritage has a crush on, it’s Michele Bachmann.”
[Good Luck]

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
House GOP Medicare Elimination Plan Puts Conservatives in a Pickle

160px-paulryan

It’s subscription-only, but Roll Call has a nice little piece by Steven T Dennis about how House GOP budget chief Paul Ryan’s plan to balance the budget by eliminating Social Security and Medicare is putting some of his colleagues on the hot seat:

For the past year, Senate Republican leaders have largely avoided putting forward alternative visions to the major bills Democrats have offered, preferring to cherry-pick politically charged amendments instead. House Republicans have taken a somewhat different tack, offering alternative bills. But in some cases, such as in their health care package, offering piecemeal ideas that eschewed politically tough choices.

The Republican game plan appears to have worked to some degree, with the Democrats’ big climate change and health initiatives stalled and a huge GOP upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election. But some conservatives have wanted more substance on issues such as Medicare cuts. Republican leaders bashed the Democratic health care plans for cutting more than $400 billion out of Medicare, but GOP budget hawks view controlling Medicare costs as essential to balancing the budget.

A Republican who asked to have his name withheld said the party’s leadership and rank and file aren’t ready to follow Ryan’s lead. “There’s a lot of worry that we beat the Democrats up on health care for cutting Medicare and now we’re going to turn around and do it,” the Republican said.

To be clear about the difference, though, the Democrats had a targeted proposal to try to eliminate specific inefficiencies. They want to take out some bonus subsidies to private insurance firms that Republicans larded onto Medicare in the 1990s. And they have a plan for a beefed-up Medicare payments commission that, in theory, should allow reimbursement rates to be made in a more technically sound manner. Some people claim these measures will have an adverse impact on patients, but that’s really a quite debatable claim.

The House GOP budget, by contrast, just goes after Medicare with a chain saw. Right now, the rapidly rising cost of health care implies rapidly increasing Medicare costs. Ryan doesn’t have a plan to control those exploding costs. Instead, his plan is to refuse to pay the bill. This saves a ton of money. If instead of paying for old people’s health care you just . . . don’t pay for their health care, then you reduce expenditures a great moment. But the reason nobody’s come up with this genius proposal before is that we’ve had a decades-long commitment to finding a way to ensure a dignified retirement, including adequate medical care.

Just the a right wing idiot thinks

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the reason nobody’s come up with this genius proposal before is that we’ve had a decades-long commitment to finding a way to ensure a dignified retirement, including adequate medical care.

Who has that obligation, Ray?

Big Government?

Or the individual\individual's family?

Just curious as to your opinion on this one...

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and one more item from your first post in this thread...

Does anyone really think that we can get a balanced (long-term) budget WITHOUT cutting Medicare\Social Security spending?

Really...

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My answer is very simple we take care of people like all the rest of the civilized world does. Yes we can balance the budget why don't you send your conservative twits to a classroom that Bill Clinton and Carter teach to find out how. I know one thing conservatism does not work. Like all dim witted conservatives when Bush 2 had the senate and house for 6 years they offered no solutions for any thing, they just deregulated everything and laid the ground work for this mess we have now.

Social security if you got rid of it whole sections of this country would go under because of the economic cash flow that goes into our society from the source of social security. As for taking care of your aging family members you are talking to the wrong country Americans are brain washed by corporate America to be selfish spending pigs. You have to look into third world countries to find the humane way of treating the elderly

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you're misunderstanding my question, Ray, let me try again.

Let's assume for a minute that we follow Rep. Bachmann's line of reasoning...just humor me for a moment. [Smile]

Let's say we 'keep faith' with all those currently on the Social Security roles. Let's even go so far as to say that we'll grandfather in anyone who is within, say, 20 years from retiring.

Got it, if you are retired or will retire within 20 years you're gold.

Everyone else is 'officially' warned that no matter what, they have to provide for their own retirement.

What do you think would happen?

Would they keep buying tv's and snowmobiles, take expensive vacations and trips to foreign countries?

Or...

Would they actually start stashing cash away for the future?

As for the "whole sections of this country would go under because of the economic cash flow that goes into our society from the source of social security." argument...I have to disagree with the premise. The same amounts of money will still have to be spent. People will still need food, medicine, shelter, etc. But that money will come from the person's own savings, not from the taxpayer. The economy will have to adjust, but I don't think it will collapse.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the Congressional Budget Office...

Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP.
Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs
is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years,
totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under longterm
projections recently published by CBO, such spending
would continue to rise under current laws and policies
and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.

If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal
spending would be well above its historical percentage of
GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly,
annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow
significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively,
if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending,
tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the
United States. Some combination of significant changes
in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies
will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal
balance.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/2009BudgetUpdate_Summary.pdf

Unless they keep hiking up the tax rates to cover it, our current practice of paying for everyone's retirement(not the original intent of the program) is absolutely unsustainable.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SF, as a member of the class of '78 i have never expected any social security payments. The demographics have ALWAYS indicated that.

this isn't a "new problem" the new problem is that Bush, Clinton, and both Democrats and GOP's destroyed our economy in large part, but not exclusively by repealing Glass-Stegall.

welcome to "The New American Century"

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get it, Glass. I really do. Planning on retiring on the next generations' dime is crazy. Yet, that is the 'golden years' plan for many in our country. When someone talks about self reliance (cutting social security outlays) they are deemed insane\idiotic.

The fact is that we need to get back to taking care of ourselves and not expecting the government to do it for us.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it ain't that simple.

employers will be expected to pay more if people don't have SS benefits to count on. People will save more money which will decrease consumer spending which will cause a drop in GDP...

we've been running this economic engine on nitromethane for too long and it's blowing up.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is the combined SS tax rate now, 12.4%?

The employer could pay you another 6.2% without hurting their bottom line (as they are paying it out anyway)...

You take that 12.4% total and stash it away. Over the course of your working life that will add up to quite a sum of money.

As for decreases in consumer spending? I still hold to my response to Ray. People will still need to buy things in their elder years. That money will just come from their own bank accounts (that they've accumulated as mentioned above) instead of from a Government payroll.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess you have never sold in the market place SF,not that I give your answer any value. Because if people only bought what they needed the country would dry up. But that is not my point. Cities like Phoenix,Scottsdale,Peoria AZ, and Sun city would be towns that were damaged beyond belief there are many other sections in the country that would follow. Not counting the revolt that would take place just try doing it and there would be no more Republican party left they wold be with the wigs.I am afraid Social Security is here to stay

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's hope that SS is here to stay or this whole country is going to be in worst trouble than it has ever been in before, there are a lot more people here now than the 1930's.

One of the problems is that many people can't save for retirement, not and easy task anytime, let alone in this day in age.

Any way it is done it seems logical that the government will be involved anyhow.

If many are not forced to save and this money is not protected legally in this type of savings account(SS), then it will not be there for many at retirement.

We have a similiar idea in 401k's, but they are there for the one's that can afford to keep them and that can change in a hurry.

The average person is suppose to save yet the Government can't do it themselves, that's the reason we have the problems we do with social security system and of course that's the whole dilema.

Instead of stoping social security, slap those suckers hands that keep dipping into the cookie jar.

The reasons for continuing it are very much the same reasons we started it in the first place.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/eliot2.html


-

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
not that I give your answer any value.
Friendly advice, Ray...always evaluate the message, not the messenger.

quote:
there would be no more Republican party left they wold be with the wigs.
This isn't a Republican issue, they are simply the ones stating the oblivious in a time that the people(in general) want the obvious voiced. Everyone knows that our current path isn't sustainable. SS is (as shown in the CBO memo) one of the biggest contributors to our fiscal demise. One way or another it will determine our financial fate.

quote:
I am afraid Social Security is here to stay

Not in it's current form...it's simply not possible...
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One of the problems is that many people can't save for retirement, not and easy task anytime, let alone in this day in age.
IWish, every (legal) worker in the US is already "saving" 12% per year through SS contributions. It's not like this personal retirement account would have to come out of current personal budgets. The difference between the 401K and one version of this concept is that they wouldn't be able to pull from the account till retirement. No hardship withdrawls etc. That way, they would HAVE to have a retirement account built up by the time they need it...

quote:
The average person is suppose to save yet the Government can't do it themselves, that's the reason we have the problems we do with social security system and of course that's the whole dilema.

Instead of stoping social security, slap those suckers hands that keep dipping into the cookie jar.

I'm all for that as well, IWish. That goes back to my point about a flat tax. Set a budget based on projected tax revenue and THAT'S IT. No deficit spending period. That would prioritize the spending and remove a great deal of pork imo. Either way, SS cannot be the retirement account of the nation...the numbers just don't support it in perpetuity.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally Quoted by SeekingFreedom:

"IWish, every (legal) worker in the US is already "saving" 12% per year through SS contributions. It's not like this personal retirement account would have to come out of current personal budgets. The difference between the 401K and one version of this concept is that they wouldn't be able to pull from the account till retirement. No hardship withdrawls etc. That way, they would HAVE to have a retirement account built up by the time they need it..."
_________________________________________________

Nothing wrong with the idea, but somehow i still think the government would have to be involved.

How do you inforce it and how do you protect these savings from the lawyers when lawsuits are involved and how do you keep us out of the savings.

Even though they might make some law that protects it, there always seems to be a way around it for the lawyers and indivuals if privately held.

If the gov. holds it, it's much much harder to get at it for everyone. That also could include indivuals that need it early because they can't work anymore, always a heaven for lawyers.

I don't like the idea of government holding our money either because of their past history, a real double edge sword.

What a mess we have.

It's suppose to be our government, hard to think of it as our gov. most of time these days, we don't seem to have much control of our representatives.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
[QUOTE]This isn't a Republican issue, they are simply the ones stating the oblivious in a time that the people(in general) want the obvious voiced. Everyone knows that our current path isn't sustainable. SS is (as shown in the CBO memo) one of the biggest contributors to our fiscal demise. One way or another it will determine our financial fate.


stating the oblivious? ain't that the truth [Wink]

SS was not designed as "favor" to garner votes. SS was done to fix a big problem in our economy. It's amazing to me how many people don't know our true American history.

America did not become a true world power until we instituted the so-called "progressive" economic tools we have today.

if you want to talk about obvious issues? let's start with cutting taxes while entering what amounts a to world war without any type of real goals?

the damage is done, there are no "repairs" that can be based on PLANNING. NONE WHATSOEVER, cutting taxes and spending will not fix the problem we have created. Anybody with basic understand of macro-economic principle knows that the current GOP talking points are just trash talk. Even they know it. They just want their power back.

the fixes we need will come only by spending alot of money in research and development here in the US for US companies to utilize and US workers to be able to enjoy a productive life. There is no other fix SF. so-called "Green jobs" are one of those things. We have to stop our trade deficits. That means cut oil imports by more than 50%. We have to stop buying Chinese goods until we at least have an even trade with them. That can be done easily with import taxes. The biggest complainers about protectionism are the ones that have the Politicians in their pockets already and enjoy protectionist policies.

The same people that complain about how the US has such high business/corporate tax rates refuse to acknowledge that as a percentage of taxes collected? the US Corps enjoy the lowest percentages in US history and also the world. Or that the actual corp tax rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.
Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.




Read more: High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading at SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleadin g-22463/?hpadref=1#ixzz0f9aImTc9

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a Republican issue, that is a load of it who the hell keeps on *****ing about it. And by the way the tax and barrow party ,the Republicans, never say they will not stop the payroll deduction.They just want to steal it and reduce taxes on the wealthy.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share