Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

L.A. Times Column: Deficit hawks' 'generational theft' argument is a sham
Los Angeles Times ^ | 02/27/2013 | Michael Hiltzik

Posted on 02/27/2013 6:46:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind

[SNIP]

So here's the truth about the "generational theft" theme: It's wrong on the numbers and wrong on the implications.

Let's start with that 7-to-1 spending ratio on seniors versus children. Among the flaws in the calculation is that the vast majority of government dollars spent on children comes from state and local governments, which pay most of the cost of education. On a per capita basis, state and local spending on kids swamps the federal government's spending 8 to 1.

Moreover, there are twice as many children 18 and under as seniors 65 and over (this 2008 figure also comes from the Urban Institute report). Put the numbers together and you discover that spending by governments at all levels in 2008 came to about $1 trillion on seniors and $936 billion on children. In other words, very close to 1 to 1.

The notion underlying the comparison of spending on seniors and children is that "if you save a dollar on Social Security it would be transferred automatically to children," observes Theodore R. Marmor, an emeritus professor of public policy at Yale and a long-term student of social welfare programs. He traces this notion to deficit hawks and dismisses it as "not naive, but cynical."

That's because most of the spending on seniors is in Social Security and Medicare, and therefore has been largely paid for by those very beneficiaries over the course of their working lives.

Payroll taxes have more than covered what today's average retiree will receive back from Social Security. They won't cover the average payout on Medicare, but that's an artifact of uncontrolled healthcare costs, not of the structure of Medicare itself. Changing the terms of that program, say by raising the eligibility age (currently 65) won't save money and may actually raise costs.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 113th; debt; deficit; federalspending; fiscalcliff; generationaltheft; medicare; socialsecurity

1 posted on 02/27/2013 6:47:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If one wonders where the flunkouts from even the most basic math classes go...just pick up a copy of the LA Times.


2 posted on 02/27/2013 6:53:31 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE :”That's because most of the spending on seniors is in Social Security and Medicare, and therefore has been largely paid for by those very beneficiaries over the course of their working lives.
Payroll taxes have more than covered what today's average retiree will receive back from Social Security. They won't cover the average payout on Medicare, but that's an artifact of uncontrolled healthcare costs, not of the structure of Medicare itself. Changing the terms of that program, say by raising the eligibility age (currently 65) won't save money and may actually raise costs.”

He doesnt understand how these programs work. The same seniors who get the benefits cant at the same time be (nearly fully) funding them. That has to be done by younger people who work.

Medicare is different than SS in that it provides services.
There is a question as to what happens to people who would be over 55 but will not get medicare for a few more years and do not have employer based insurance.

They would go on Obama-care instead. Is that cheaper? Do we know?

3 posted on 02/27/2013 6:58:32 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Social Security and Medicare are defined contribution programs - not entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs are paid for out of general tax revenues and are means-tested.

Social Security/Medicare on the hand are paid into by their beneficiaries. They get back what they paid into them during their working lives when they retire.

The people on them are not moochers and don’t deserve to have their benefits cut or their eligibility age for them increased. Society made a pact with them to put their money aside for their later years.

To say its generational theft isn’t accurate and misses the point. A decent society takes care of its aged and sick and we wouldn’t have it any other way. Its who we are as a country.


4 posted on 02/27/2013 6:59:00 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I wonder if Libtards get whiplash from nodding their agreement to this drivel. To suggest that retirees have prepaid most or all of their government benefits is leftist BS.


5 posted on 02/27/2013 7:00:17 AM PST by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This article is the equivalent of yelling "Squirrel!" to distract people. I never heard the "generation theft" argument backed up by saying that "we spend too much on the old and should spend more on the kids". It has always been that the government spends too much and is running up a debt of over $16 trillion. The author tries to claim that we are getting a lot, including captial goods like highways, from the spending but we are not getting anywhere close to what we have spent. Most of the projects for the stimulus were plans from the bottom of the cities' road departments pile which never were important enough to build with their own money or previous years' smaller piles of federal money. We aren't building a new interstate highway system. We're building a hundred thousand sidewalks where people aren't walking.

And even more than the debt, the creation of a tidal wave of new money out of thin air is just waiting to hit shore in a destructive crush of hyperinflation.

6 posted on 02/27/2013 7:01:02 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Choose one: the yellow and black flag of the Tea Party or the white flag of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

“That’s because most of the spending on seniors is in Social Security and Medicare, and therefore has been largely paid for by those very beneficiaries over the course of their working lives. “

That is a lie.

First, most retirees, at least up until now, took out far more in benefits than they ever paid in.

Second, both Medicaid and Security are funded out of the current budget. Their “trust funds” are special government bonds that must be redeemed on demand.

In short, the monies people thought they were setting aside went to current beneficiaries or went into the general fund, where it helped mask deficit spending. What they in fact were buying was a promise of some large future payout, contingent on electing politicians who wouldn’t reform the system.

Millions of people are going to wake up soon and find out that there is no money in SS, and that their “benefits” are contingent on a shrinking workforce with declining incomes. Millions of workers will simultaneously realize that they are being fleeced to cover current benefits, benefits which are mathematically impossible for them to ever receive.

And then the intergenerational wars really begin...YMMV


7 posted on 02/27/2013 7:01:12 AM PST by bt_dooftlook (Democrats - the party of Amnesty, Abortion, and Adolescence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I can't tell if this is from "professor" Ted or the author:

That's because most of the spending on seniors is in Social Security and Medicare, and therefore has been largely paid for by those very beneficiaries over the course of their working lives.

In either case the writer is an a$$.

As soon as the money was collected it was spent and replaced with government bonds. Since there is only government paper in the SS "trust fund," the government will have to either sell additional debt or increase taxes to redeem the current paper. That action will fall on tomorrow's employees (today's youth). The government is spending money today that my grandchildren haven't even earned yet!

8 posted on 02/27/2013 7:01:12 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Society made a pact with them to put their money aside for their later years.

That is false.

FDR made a pact to transfer wealth. He may have had good intentions - and that's a separate argument. Nevertheless, the "pact" that would have and could still work would be a "pact" to keep saving your OWN money until retirement. Not saving for someone else.

freakin' duh

just sayin'

9 posted on 02/27/2013 7:12:09 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

You don’t understand how a defined contribution program works.

In your working years, a part of your salary is taken through taxes and that money goes into your Social Security account. Upon your retirement, its paid back to you to look after you in old age.

Young people are taxed exactly the same way. These benefits are your money the government keeps in trust for you! This is the way Social Security has always worked.

There is no “free rider.” Any one who works is eligible for Social Security. Entitlement programs like welfare on the other hand have certain income and enrollment requirements. Social Security is a universal society program and entitlement programs usually cover only the very poor/disabled.

No comparison exists between a defined contribution program and an entitlement program and the public understands the difference between them.


10 posted on 02/27/2013 7:12:27 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wonder what these reporters will be writing when the f*cked up economy results in them being laid off and they can’t find any jobs.


11 posted on 02/27/2013 7:14:30 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A decent government does not take money out of Soc Security lock box and spend it on other entitlements and wars when it is needed to head off demographic changes and logevity and then cover up the crime by having their allies in the media lecture taxpayers that they must make up the difference or they are not taking care of the old and aged. IMHO those politicians should be found guilty of fraud and financial sabotage of the US economy, lined up against the wall and shot. Any reporter or US citizen that abeit in the cover up should be shipped off to Alaska to build roads to nowhere till they are dead.


12 posted on 02/27/2013 7:19:10 AM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Gilbo_3
RE :”In your working years, a part of your salary is taken through taxes and that money goes into your Social Security account. Upon your retirement, its paid back to you to look after you in old age.”

You dont understand how the gubment works. It taxes money from some and spends it on others, There is no savings account, the Fed gub is not designed to save money. Any left over (payroll) tax revenue was spent on the spot. That is completely different than a 401K.

I swear JUST YESTERDAY I had a lib here make a point using same assumption as you, he claimed that Nixon decided to steal the SS surplus to fund Vietnam. I had to explain to him the exact same thing. If they raise FICA taxes they spend the extra $$$, if they cut them they borrow the difference to pay benefits as they did the past couple of years. Taxpayers have to fund the bill either way.

The only way SS and medicare pays benefits is taxing and borrowing. Your imaginary SS piggy bank has nothin in it.

13 posted on 02/27/2013 7:24:11 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“Social Security and Medicare are defined contribution programs - not entitlement programs.”

Then we should have no problem making participation voluntary.


14 posted on 02/27/2013 7:39:07 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“A decent society takes care of its aged and sick”

The same society that has aborted 1/3rd of my generation?


15 posted on 02/27/2013 7:40:23 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.


16 posted on 02/27/2013 7:42:54 AM PST by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
In your working years, a part of your salary is taken through taxes and that money goes into your Social Security account. Upon your retirement, its paid back to you to look after you in old age.

You forgot your /sarc tag.

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE paying ANY attention to the world today still believes in a "Social Security Trust Fund".... What you describe would be AWESOME... but, that's NOT how they do it.

You'd be better off telling us more about Santa Claus.

17 posted on 02/27/2013 7:50:39 AM PST by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kegger

Exactly. I’ve read that the Supreme Court has ruled that no one has legal claim to any of their “contributions”. It is a Ponzi scheme of the worst kind, perhaps the worst thing (of many) FDR fostered on the Republic.


18 posted on 02/27/2013 7:54:54 AM PST by Marathoner (What are we waiting for? Where are the Articles of Impeachment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
In your working years, a part of your salary is taken through taxes and that money goes into your Social Security account. Upon your retirement, its paid back to you to look after you in old age.

You forgot your /sarc tag.

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE paying ANY attention to the world today still believes in a "Social Security Trust Fund".... What you describe would be AWESOME... but, that's NOT how they do it.

You'd be better off telling us more about Santa Claus.

19 posted on 02/27/2013 8:05:00 AM PST by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Most people get more out of Medicare than they put in. Costs have risen more than anticipated, and the benefit is distributed evenly to so many people, regardless of how much a person has paid into it over their lifetime (it doesn’t belong to the individual). There isn’t enough money so it is paid for in part by current workers.


20 posted on 02/27/2013 8:04:59 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A decent (Great?) society does take care of it’s old and sick. The government is a failure in that capacity for the same reason it fails in so many areas. There is a nearly infinite amount of need, and finite resources to meet those needs. I guess decency and bankruptcy are one in the same. The expenditures will grow until the whole thing comes crashing down. Then we can all congratulate ourselves on how decent it all was.


21 posted on 02/27/2013 8:05:24 AM PST by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You are 100% wrong about how Social Security works.

But what you are describing is how Social Security SHOULD work: your money plus your employer match SHOULD go into your personal account, where it would be saved, invested, earn interest, and eventually pay for your retirement with any residual eventually going to your heirs.

Many of us believe Social Security should be reformed along these lines. For our troubles we are demonized by the Ponzi scheme crowd as reckless “privatizers,” while a plurality of the public believes wrongly that Social Security already is a thrift savings and investment plan. The politics of this are quite insane.

This is the Big Lie on steroids and compounded over 75 years of relentless propaganda. People think they already have something that Social Security in fact is not and has never been. Reformers want to bring this promised vision into reality, and we are pilloried. Insane.


22 posted on 02/27/2013 8:18:12 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

(( ping ))


23 posted on 02/27/2013 8:21:15 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

What will it take for the ‘Progressives’ to realize Social Security is a tax, not ‘insurance’. The money’s already been spent. There is no ‘lock box’. It’s been that way since August 14, 1935.


24 posted on 02/27/2013 8:25:37 AM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; sphinx
It is important to remember in these discussions that the USSC has already ruled on the question of SSI being a “right”, or “guarantee”. The case of Fleming v. Nestor (1960) basically said the government was encouraging the public’s misunderstanding that SS was an entitlement by calling payments into it “contributions”. In fact, the court ruled, payments into SS are nothing more than taxes (and hello to you, John Roberts), and payments out of it are basically welfare. As such, the government can change, or even suspend payments at any time in the future. I would guess that a majority of the public, if asked, believes that because you “paid into” SS, you are “entitled” to at least what you paid in. The USSC says you are not.
25 posted on 02/27/2013 8:28:47 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SomeCallMeTim

answers:
‘The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the “general operating fund.”

However, the Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). This has always been the case.

During the Johnson administration, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This did not mean that it was actually part of the general fund, rather that it was finally recorded as part of the budget.’

THIS is propaganda.


26 posted on 02/27/2013 8:30:05 AM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
You have already established that you do not want to cut spending. You have yet to state how you intend to pay for entitlement programs.

Oh, and the article has a little flaw in it. Part of the “stimulus” package that bush signed went to schools. Now a large part of their budget is funded by the federal government. For many schools, the biggest portion of the budget is from the State, then the Federal, and finally the district.

All are going to get cut, or taxes have to go up. Same with SS. The money is not there.

And thank you for the ping (not being sarcastic).

27 posted on 02/27/2013 8:40:24 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
SS is a tax. It goes into the general fund. It is a tax, and the money you paid in (and I have) was spent shortly after it was taken in.

Now all the current SS payout is coming from the yearly budget. There is no lock box, and hasn't been for decades (more than likely since before you started working).

No one really wants to admit that, but it is the truth.

28 posted on 02/27/2013 8:50:50 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Here’s my reply from last night again, since you missed it the first time:

Why would anybody tell those who have dumped money down the government toilet their entire working lives they now won’t be getting their own SS checks?

Before fooling around with Social Security, first cut off the illegal aliens; then the bums, deadbeats, and parasites who comprise the Democrat party base; then tell the government unions to go suck eggs - - no more “public sector” unions “negotiating” with corrupt politicians for their Rolls Royce pensions and perks; then get rid of all the redundant agencies and worthless, ineffective bureaucracies and departments such as the Department of Education. (How many hundreds of billions of dollars are we up to?)

First, clean up the mess and only THEN talk to me about more taxes.
Starve the beast.

Your answer BEGINS with, “Taxes must be raised.” I maintain you belong back on the liberal Democrat site you came from.


29 posted on 02/27/2013 9:02:15 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If this is not generational theft, who is going to pay for all this spending and borrowing? Perhaps it is the tooth fairy.


30 posted on 02/27/2013 9:13:37 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3
RE :”What will it take for the ‘Progressives’ to realize Social Security is a tax, not ‘insurance’. The money’s already been spent. There is no ‘lock box’. It’s been that way since August 14, 1935.

Did ya see the freeper who lectured me above that SS was a retirement savings account?

SS serves some positive ( LESS EVERY DAY) purpose but anyone thinking that the gubment is saving their taxes in an account for them is just foolish or dishonest or both.

The government is not setup to save money, it is setup to take and spend money and usually for votes,
Exhibit A and B =GWB and Obama.

31 posted on 02/27/2013 9:59:10 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

‘Red’ Golum needs to learn about the Laffer Curve.


32 posted on 02/27/2013 10:10:37 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
And you maintain
“I want my* money first! Cut somewhere else!”
(*the money paid into to SS goes into the general fund. It is gone, there is no lock box).

That is the attitude I find amazing. Everyone has a pet project or entitlement that needs to be defended. That is my point.

Romney was right that 47% or so pay no taxes, and get their livelihood from the government. That includes federal employees, retirees, and SS recipients. They all will say how important it is that their personal job or entitlement gets funded, and go cut somewhere else.

You are a prime example of it. You want to protect your SS benefit, which you perceive to be owed to you (look at the court cases, you are not owed anything). You are willing for every other group that does not affect you to have massive cuts, but not your entitlement. You are not along. I had the same conversation on FR will people working in the Parks department, NASA, FDA, and a lot of government contractors. All want to cut the spending, as long as it isn't the spending going to them. In other words, fiscal liberals.

You are part of the Democrat base. You are trying to defend you part of the government boondoggle money, and don't care about anything else. Never mind that the SS fund will run out of money very soon, you want “your” money. Which comes from me, and everyone else still working.

So you want a tax increase. That is the only way SS will stay solvent without massive benefit cuts.

Now that tax increase can be explicit, or hidden with inflation. Same with the cuts. But looking at this board, I have come to the understanding that no one really wants to balance the budget. No one really wants to stop spending that affects them. So the money has to come from somewhere.

So where will the money come from to fund your SS? Santa Claus? We don't have the money coming in to fund it, even if it was the only thing on the budget.

33 posted on 02/27/2013 10:19:36 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Lancey Howard
I know it very well. However you are missing my point.

The Laffer curve assumes that spending stays a relative constant (or at least doesn't increase exponentially). Either we cut everything, and I mean everything from Social Security and Defense to the study of Brazilian banana slugs, or we find a way to fund the stupid games. No one really wants to cut anything. Look at the moaning on THIS BOARD over the “Massive cuts” to the DOD. Look at the moans over the small increase to SS payments. No one really wants to cut anything, they want their money!

Now, if we could do some major cuts, along the order of 10 to 20% across the board, then we can start talking about controlling spending. But we can't even cut anything. These “massive” cuts coming are just reductions in the budget increase.

And yes, I am playing a bit of the cats paw here. I don't want tax increases, but I have yet to see any real support for spending cuts on FR. So either we cut spending, and that means SS and defense also, or massively increase taxes, which will crater the economy.

We can't have both spending increases and tax cuts. Yet everyone wants “Their” money, but not have pay for someone else’s “money”.

34 posted on 02/27/2013 10:29:02 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is a very simple reason why lefties don’t care about the deficit: They want to crash the system....EVERY system...so they can rebuild one system in the form of a New World Government with one currency.


35 posted on 02/27/2013 10:36:30 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Look at the moaning on THIS BOARD over the “Massive cuts” to the DOD. Look at the moans over the small increase to SS payments. No one really wants to cut anything, they want their money!

You are knocking down the straw men you yourself erected.

I am on this site enough to know that there are very few freepers who "moan" about cuts to the DoD. A small handful, but that's it - - and I haven't seen a single complaint about "the small increase to SS payments". Most freepers (including me) are saying, "Bring on the sequestration cuts."

And by the way, the false dichotomy stuff doesn't work around here. It sounds as if you may have fallen for the horse manure propagated by the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms and their pundits who would have you believe that Americans are confused schizophrenics who want lots of government "services" but "don't want to pay for them". It's a con job. A scam.

The people who demand lots of "services" and "free stuff" from government are generally not hard-working, traditional American families, and the hard-working, traditional American families who pay the taxes are generally not the same people who have their grubby paws out looking for "free" stuff. We are talking about two separate and distinct groups of people here.

One group is the Republican "base" and the other is the Democrat "base".

36 posted on 02/27/2013 11:00:46 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Do you, or do you not, support cuts to Social Security?


37 posted on 02/27/2013 11:13:25 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
You are foolishly or purposely misusing/confusing the term "tax increase" with the idea of increasing government revenues. The 2 things are diametrically opposed to each other. Raising marginal rates DECREASE revenue. Noe I've been over this with you 3 times now. So you are either stupid or a troll.

Every time MARGINAL rates are LOWERED revenue increases, and has NOTHING to do with spending. Look at Kennedy and Reagan for guidance here.

38 posted on 02/27/2013 11:24:48 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Do you, or do you not, support cuts to Social Security?

I support complete elimination of the program, or at least an "opt out" provision for people under a certain age, say, 30. Meanwhile, everybody who dumped their "payroll tax" money down the government toilet their whole working lives based on the promise that they would recoup a little of it in the form of an old age pension should continue to receive their checks since they are obviously not moochers and freeloaders like the Democrat party base. Far from it. Better yet, calculate the sum total of what I've paid into the system for SS, add compounded interest based on historical averages, and hand me a check. I will gladly take it and run.

Does that answer your question?

So what's your game? You must have your snout in the public trough, what with your obsession with raising taxes.

39 posted on 02/27/2013 11:32:26 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I would love to opt out of SS. However, how would we pay for the current recipients? If I stop paying in to SS, and say “I can take care of it myself”, how will the current program be funded? Where will the money come from?

And no, I don't work for any state, local, or federal government or receive any incentives other than mortgage deduction, charitable, etc.

Again, I don't want taxes to go up. But my point is you have to either cut a lot of stuff (including those who are getting SS currently who were lied to), or confiscate a lot of money from somewhere. You can't keep increasing entitlement spending, or any spending, and not increase the money coming in.

40 posted on 02/27/2013 12:06:33 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
You can't keep increasing entitlement spending, or any spending, and not increase the money coming in.

I agree. So how do you "increase the money coming in"?
(snap!) I know!
You lower tax rates! It's always worked before.

41 posted on 02/27/2013 1:29:18 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I thought generational theft was when they steal from the next generational to pay for the programs today.


42 posted on 02/28/2013 1:18:08 AM PST by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Sure! That works under a few conditions, but the primary one is start cutting spending! Which seems to be the issue, no on wants to cut spending.

If you run a business like that, you quickly go under.


43 posted on 02/28/2013 3:59:56 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson