Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Americans care so much about cutting the deficit that they're not willing to cut spending from any government programs   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Americans, deficits, Andrew Kohut  
•       •       •

1658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:41 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-15 02:05:37 PM  

Citrate1007: FrailChild: Wendy's Chili: I wonder what happened between 2007 and today that would cause Republicans to drastically change their view on deficit spending.

Deficit spending the likes of which this country has never seen.... perhaps?!

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 458x339]

You realize it only looks like that because Bush kept the cost of the war off of the books don't you in addition to the ramification of the Bush Tax cuts? Wait, Fox News drone detected.....of course you don't.


That graph also attributes the 2009 budget to Obama, even though it was created under Bush and signed into effect by Bush. It's like buying a new house, and the old owners left a bomb under the floorboards, then you getting blamed when it blows.
 
2012-06-15 02:06:01 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.


If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?
 
2012-06-15 02:07:18 PM  

FrailChild: Wendy's Chili: I wonder what happened between 2007 and today that would cause Republicans to drastically change their view on deficit spending.

Deficit spending the likes of which this country has never seen.... perhaps?!

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 458x339]


I love how your graph only gives Bush seven years in office and blames Obama entirely for the deficit in 2009 even though three and a half months had transpired in FY09 before he was inaugurated.
 
2012-06-15 02:07:58 PM  

MasterThief: scrapping the F-22


Well, at least they cancelled it... or did they?
 
2012-06-15 02:08:25 PM  

FrailChild: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?


My ex-wife's best friend from high school is married to a guy but is on WIC, food stamps, and Medicaid.
 
2012-06-15 02:09:21 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: FarkedOver: 3_Butt_Cheeks: This just in...once you give somebody something (aka money for stuff you wanna do), they really tend to NOT wanna give it up.

Try taking a kit-kat from a 10 yr old brat.

But just think of the satisfaction you getting taking that kit-kat from a 10 year old. God, it's almost arousing. Speaking of arousing, you haven't quite lived until you've taken WIC away from a single mother. It is boner-inducing to say the least.

I'll smack a child for a kit-kat. If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

[www.boo-z.com image 274x354]


I'll pay that "pole tax"
 
2012-06-15 02:11:28 PM  
Yeah duh.

NOBODY cares about the deficit. Nobody. It's a talking point for whatever party finds themselves out of power, that's it.
 
2012-06-15 02:11:38 PM  

FailChild:
[made-up-graph image 458x339]


i1097.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-15 02:13:04 PM  

FrailChild: Wendy's Chili: I wonder what happened between 2007 and today that would cause Republicans to drastically change their view on deficit spending.

Deficit spending the likes of which this country has never seen.... perhaps?!

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 458x339]


The only reason we hadn't seen it is because Bush hid it from us.

It's also funny how Dubs only had a 7 year presidency according to your graph.
 
2012-06-15 02:17:17 PM  
i have a boehner right now.
 
2012-06-15 02:18:33 PM  
No surprises here. This was obvious a few years back when voters in California said yes to more spending at the same time they said no to more taxes. Politicians on both sides have promoted plans over the years that made people believe that they could have it both ways and you can as long as you don't care about deficits. At least one or more of three things has to happen, programs will have to be cut, taxes will have to be raised or a nice bout of hyper-inflation will be required to negate the debt. The question is can any politician be elected by saying he supports less goodies? or stay elected if he actually tries it? Maybe the only solution is a catastrophic collapse that makes the decision for us. Color me pessimistic. The voting public has become so polarized that watching politics is like watching Kabuki, all the move are known and so stylized that anyone who deviates from the script is an outcast.
 
2012-06-15 02:18:43 PM  
So no-one wants their pet program or gravy train of government cash to stop. Selfish and great asshattery, yes. There are few noble souls who would offer to give up a program even though they know full well it's a huge waste of money and a crock of shiat.

IMHO, the gov in this case is to blame, primarily for instituting programs with no oversight into how effective the program is or is not. It's a never ending cycle for all of these pet projects, then if the mere suggestion pops up to cancel and (R) or (D) program, it is automatically a 'partisan attack' by the other side.

I'd like to see an independent (yes, really) body tasked with full auditing of all programs, government contracts (which always run WAY over budget and are never done on time) and those which do not meet standards, get the axe or are at least put up for a mandatory review/vote in Congress.

/end soapbox thingy.
 
2012-06-15 02:19:36 PM  

Serious Black: FrailChild: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?

My ex-wife's best friend from high school is married to a guy but is on WIC, food stamps, and Medicaid.


And how does this relate to a discussion of single mothers?
 
2012-06-15 02:20:38 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: IMHO, the gov in this case is to blame, primarily for instituting programs with no oversight into how effective the program is or is not. It's a never ending cycle for all of these pet projects, then if the mere suggestion pops up to cancel and (R) or (D) program, it is automatically a 'partisan attack' by the other side.


The pet projects are entirely irrelevant. Pretty much our ENTIRE deficit problem and future debt problem is due to rising medical costs. Your entire post focuses on a distraction, a fly in the room.
 
2012-06-15 02:22:17 PM  
The deficit is so important that the GOP candidate is running with a plank in his platform of increasing defense spending $2.1 trillion over the next decade and his corresponding cuts are "hey, I'll tell you later".

It sure sounds super important when you treat it like that.
 
2012-06-15 02:23:08 PM  

FrailChild: Serious Black: FrailChild: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?

My ex-wife's best friend from high school is married to a guy but is on WIC, food stamps, and Medicaid.

And how does this relate to a discussion of single mothers?


My point is that not everyone on these programs is a slut who can't keep her legs crossed. There are far more people using these programs who are trying to do everything right and simply got into a bad situation through absolutely no fault of their own.
 
2012-06-15 02:23:11 PM  

DamnYankees: 3_Butt_Cheeks: IMHO, the gov in this case is to blame, primarily for instituting programs with no oversight into how effective the program is or is not. It's a never ending cycle for all of these pet projects, then if the mere suggestion pops up to cancel and (R) or (D) program, it is automatically a 'partisan attack' by the other side.

The pet projects are entirely irrelevant. Pretty much our ENTIRE deficit problem and future debt problem is due to rising medical costs. Your entire post focuses on a distraction, a fly in the room.


Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

blog.heritage.org
 
2012-06-15 02:23:41 PM  

FrailChild: Wendy's Chili: I wonder what happened between 2007 and today that would cause Republicans to drastically change their view on deficit spending.

Deficit spending the likes of which this country has never seen.... perhaps?!

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 458x339]


The deficits have gone up because revenues have plummeted, not because of massive spending increases:

"Nevertheless, the spending Obama inherited was so high that even modest increases keep it at a level that is extraordinarily lofty by historical standards."

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
 
2012-06-15 02:24:29 PM  

FrailChild: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?


You're right! You are exactly right!

Let's invest in programs to provide better socioeconomic and educational opportunities for low-income/at-risk girls (and boys) so that they can get a better idea of how the world at large works and see that having sex out of boredom and having more kids to collect more benefits really pales in comparison to working hard for a few years to earn a rewarding career. Yes, let's get some social services in place to level the playing field so that disadvantaged youth have more hopes than either becoming a professional athlete, or pop star. Let's ensure that even if the girl is trying to keep her pants on and someone decides to rip them off, she's not forced to deal with the "consequences". Let's get these kids to see that there is hope and they don't have to wind up dead at 18 or as job security for a prison guard.

That's what you meant, right? I love when I discover a fellow progressive Farker!
 
2012-06-15 02:25:46 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:


So you're agreeing with me. But your own graph, social security spending will basically remain constant. The growth comes from Medicare. That's the issue.
 
2012-06-15 02:26:29 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:


You are right, but there is a way to fix that. Raise the retirement age gradually and eliminate the cap on social security taxes.
 
2012-06-15 02:27:17 PM  

vernonFL: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

You are right, but there is a way to fix that. Raise the retirement age gradually and eliminate the cap on social security taxes.


But hisown graph, social security spending will basically remain constant. How is that the monster in the closet?
 
2012-06-15 02:29:25 PM  

DamnYankees: But hisown graph, social security spending will basically remain constant. How is that the monster in the closet?


Oh. Now that I look at it, you are right. Medicare is the problem. I don't know how to fix THAT.
 
2012-06-15 02:29:54 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: DamnYankees:The pet projects are entirely irrelevant. Pretty much our ENTIRE deficit problem and future debt problem is due to rising medical costs. Your entire post focuses on a distraction, a fly in the room.

Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

[blog.heritage.org image 601x547]


Yo, everybody gonna get sick someday / But nobody knows how they gonna pay / Health care, managed care, HMOs / Ain't gonna work, no sir, not those / 'Cause the thing that's the same in every one of these / Is these motherfarkers there, the insurance companies!/ You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day!

Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word - SOCIALISM!
 
2012-06-15 02:32:24 PM  

DamnYankees: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

So you're agreeing with me. But your own graph, social security spending will basically remain constant. The growth comes from Medicare. That's the issue.


The growth is from SS and Medicare mostly. All three need a tune up desperately.

vernonFL: You are right, but there is a way to fix that. Raise the retirement age gradually and eliminate the cap on social security taxes.


That's one way. I'm not sure of how much the effect of a really really gradual retirement age would help (or who would vote for it) but it certainly would help. They should also consider reducing/recalculating the COLA for retirees. No matter what, since we have let it go so long without doing squat, the youth are going to get shafted. And not the good shafted.
 
2012-06-15 02:33:21 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The growth is from SS and Medicare mostly. All three need a tune up desperately.


No, it's from Medicare. Look at your own freaking chart - there is basically no growth from SS. Stop lumping them together.
 
2012-06-15 02:33:37 PM  

imontheinternet: 3_Butt_Cheeks: DamnYankees:The pet projects are entirely irrelevant. Pretty much our ENTIRE deficit problem and future debt problem is due to rising medical costs. Your entire post focuses on a distraction, a fly in the room.

Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

[blog.heritage.org image 601x547]

Yo, everybody gonna get sick someday / But nobody knows how they gonna pay / Health care, managed care, HMOs / Ain't gonna work, no sir, not those / 'Cause the thing that's the same in every one of these / Is these motherfarkers there, the insurance companies!/ You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day!

Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word - SOCIALISM!


What are you on about?
 
2012-06-15 02:33:43 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:


According to that graph, Medicare is the problem - that's the wedge that grows disproportionately.

The serious inflection point is about 3-6 years from now, which requires some sort of explanation (and don't just say "Obamacare". What's the SOURCE - with numbers - for that claim?).

Also, by my estimation, there's about 40 years until the growth line crosses the 18.2% mark. Look at estimates of Federal spending (even just on entitlements) from 40 years ago - do they hold up today? No? I wonder why not...

Also, you may be interested to know that, while revenues are historically 18-19% of GDP, there was something (actually, 2 somethings) that happened in the early 21st Century that caused some dips in the line. With another dip in the line just before 2012 (which magically jumps back to 18.2% for 2012), one wonders what those drop-offs in revenue are, who is responsible, and what does it do to the projections if the line instead stays at 14% (rather than magically rising to 18.2% in time for 2013)?

In short, while ignoring the problem with health care expenses (especially geriatric and end-of-life care, qua Medicare) would be really bad, perhaps we should focus on the things that make that projection go haywire, rather than simply cut the overages and call it a day.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-15 02:34:11 PM  

FrailChild: Wendy's Chili: I wonder what happened between 2007 and today that would cause Republicans to drastically change their view on deficit spending.

Deficit spending the likes of which this country has never seen.... perhaps?!

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 458x339]


Nah, that's the party of "deficits don't matter" and "tax cuts pay for themselves".
 
2012-06-15 02:37:51 PM  

DamnYankees: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The growth is from SS and Medicare mostly. All three need a tune up desperately.

No, it's from Medicare. Look at your own freaking chart - there is basically no growth from SS. Stop lumping them together.


Relax chief. Breathe and explain how SS is NOT going to be a problem. I can't think of many people who think SS shouldn't and doesn't need revamping.

Dr Dreidel: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

According to that graph, Medicare is the problem - that's the wedge that grows disproportionately.

The serious inflection point is about 3-6 years from now, which requires some sort of explanation (and don't just say "Obamacare". What's the SOURCE - with numbers - for that claim?).

Also, by my estimation, there's about 40 years until the growth line crosses the 18.2% mark. Look at estimates of Federal spending (even just on entitlements) from 40 years ago - do they hold up today? No? I wonder why not...

Also, you may be interested to know that, while revenues are historically 18-19% of GDP, there was something (actually, 2 somethings) that happened in the early 21st Century that caused some dips in the line. With another dip in the line just before 2012 (which magically jumps back to 18.2% for 2012), one wonders what those drop-offs in revenue are, who is responsible, and what does it do to the projections if the line instead stays at 14% (rather than magically rising to 18.2% in time for 2013)?

In short, while ignoring the problem with health care expenses (especially geriatric and end-of-life care, qua Medicare) would be really bad, perhaps we should focus on the things that make that projection go haywire, rather than simply cut the overages and call it a day.


Agreed, but ignoring it as we have been doing is not a viable policy, yet we are simply awesome at it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-15 02:38:00 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I wonder if we'll legalize it when stuff^ like^ this^ starts happening here

Or will Fox News tell us this is a good way to deal with those police 'Cadillac' pensions?

All links NSFW


Of course pointing out that that is happening there BECAUSE pot is illegal here would probably be lost on you. Although you do bring up a good point. Taking away the incomes of the narco-gangs in Mexico is probably the best reason of all for legalization.
 
2012-06-15 02:39:33 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Breathe and explain how SS is NOT going to be a problem. I can't think of many people who think SS shouldn't and doesn't need revamping.


You want me to explain why its NOT a problem? It's not a problem the same way 85 billion other things about this country is not a problem. Is it perfect? No. Can we improve it? Yes. But it's not a growing concern. It's stable and requires a very simple fix. It's not a particular problem at all. Your own charts show that.

And whether you know or can think of people who agree is entirely irrelevant.
 
2012-06-15 02:39:40 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Relax chief. Breathe and explain how SS is NOT going to be a problem. I can't think of many people who think SS shouldn't and doesn't need revamping.


Because as of right now it's solvent until 2037 and can pay out ~75% of benefits after that. If that's not long enough for you then lift the cap from $110K to $250K it will be solvent for the next 75 years. Done.
 
2012-06-15 02:39:52 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: DamnYankees: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Of course it does, but this is part of the problem, and unfortunately the only ones anyone is willing to do anything about. Yes, we know the monster in the closet:

So you're agreeing with me. But your own graph, social security spending will basically remain constant. The growth comes from Medicare. That's the issue.

The growth is from SS and Medicare mostly. All three need a tune up desperately.


Take a look at your chart and answer me two questions. What percentage of the federal budget does it say social security will take up this year, and what percentage does it say it'll take up in 2083? For double jeopardy you can tell me whether that number has gone up.
 
2012-06-15 02:44:48 PM  

Karac: What percentage of the federal budget does it say social security will take up this year, and what percentage does it say it'll take up in 2083?


It is something that needs to be addressed.
 
2012-06-15 02:45:48 PM  

The Homer Tax: Spending the taxpayers' money on things I like is vital to the future of our nation and needs to not only not be cut, but be increased. Spending taxpayers' money on things *you* like that I don't is wrong and your reasons for supporting it are nefarious.


Also, raising taxes on other people is them paying their fair share.
Raising my taxes is the destruction of whatever class I happen to be in.


/politics...politics never changes
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-15 02:46:56 PM  

FrailChild: 3_Butt_Cheeks: If single mothers knew how to pole dance and wax the yeast cake, they wouldn't need WIC anyway.

If (most)single mothers knew how to keep their pants on until they found a guy responsible and grown up enough to marry them, they wouldn't be single mothers that we are now collectively morally obligated to support with WIC?


If most "conservatives" were bright enough to not believe everything they heard from Republicans we wouldn't have had a war in Iraq and would have saved billions of dollars, but they aren't and we have to live with reality.
 
2012-06-15 02:48:39 PM  
Americans aren't willing to cut the $2.5 billion per day military budget.

And what's funny is that if you ask them what the daily military budget is, they will almost always grossly underestimate it. Few actually know how much it is.
 
2012-06-15 02:53:30 PM  

farkityfarker: Americans aren't willing to cut the $2.5 billion per day military budget.

And what's funny is that if you ask them what the daily military budget is, they will almost always grossly underestimate it. Few actually know how much it is.


The budget is bloated and should be cut, but no D or R is going to propose it. They all have bases or contracts etc etc they get $ for, and they'd probably get booted out of office for doing it, despite its necessity.
 
2012-06-15 02:54:33 PM  

vpb: Most people think that 90% of the Federal budget goes to welfare and foreign aid.


Link

Combined Federal State and Local

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Federal Only
www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
2012-06-15 02:54:41 PM  

vernonFL: Oh. Now that I look at it, you are right. Medicare is the problem. I don't know how to fix THAT.


Anything that reduces the general cost of health care reduces Medicare (and Medicaid) costs. My pet idea:

Drugs have a lot of low-hanging cost fruit. The amount the US (public and private) pays for drugs each year is more than twice the pharma industry's R&D budget PLUS the amount countries like Canada and the UK pay for drugs each year. Therefore, if we publicly funded pharma R&D at current levels, and literally gave away the drugs to the world, we'd still come out ahead.
 
2012-06-15 02:57:42 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: It's actually really simple: Take away the party labels, and a vast majority of people want more and smarter spending on social programs, infrastructure, and the general well being of the populous, and less spending on wars, pointless foreign aid, and ridiculous business policy.


Why would anybody be in favor or ridiculous business policy?
 
2012-06-15 02:58:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Grand_Moff_Joseph: It's actually really simple: Take away the party labels, and a vast majority of people want more and smarter spending on social programs, infrastructure, and the general well being of the populous, and less spending on wars, pointless foreign aid, and ridiculous business policy.

Why would anybody be in favor or ridiculous business policy?


Greed?
 
2012-06-15 03:00:19 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: vernonFL: Oh. Now that I look at it, you are right. Medicare is the problem. I don't know how to fix THAT.

Anything that reduces the general cost of health care reduces Medicare (and Medicaid) costs. My pet idea:

Drugs have a lot of low-hanging cost fruit. The amount the US (public and private) pays for drugs each year is more than twice the pharma industry's R&D budget PLUS the amount countries like Canada and the UK pay for drugs each year. Therefore, if we publicly funded pharma R&D at current levels, and literally gave away the drugs to the world, we'd still come out ahead.


Zing!
 
2012-06-15 03:04:00 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Relax chief. Breathe and explain how SS is NOT going to be a problem. I can't think of many people who think SS shouldn't and doesn't need revamping.

Because as of right now it's solvent until 2037 and can pay out ~75% of benefits after that. If that's not long enough for you then lift the cap from $110K to $250K it will be solvent for the next 75 years. Done.


Or lower benefits by 30% and it will be solvent for 75 years. Done.

Or you can raise the age to 70 and adjust it in the future for changes in life expectancy an it will be solvent until the next century.

Or you can raise the tax rate from 6.2% employer/employee by 0.1% per year until it is actuarially solvent and then raise it or lower it as demographic changes occur and it will be solvent forever.

/it's unsustainable as is. You can arbitrarily change inputs/outputs to make it solvent but try to come up with a solution that affects everybody instead of just taking from those who are better off.
 
2012-06-15 03:05:24 PM  

Karac: OK, I used to be against legalization of weed, but even I've gotten to a "meh, I just don't give a fark" state. I seriously doubt that legalization would increase the number of stoned drivers on the road. Most of the people who would toke and drive after smoking is legal are the same people who would do it now - or the same people who would drink and drive.


Even if weed was legal, I think there would still be more drivers drunk than stoned.
 
2012-06-15 03:06:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Or lower benefits by 30% and it will be solvent for 75 years. Done.

Or you can raise the age to 70 and adjust it in the future for changes in life expectancy an it will be solvent until the next century.

Or you can raise the tax rate from 6.2% employer/employee by 0.1% per year until it is actuarially solvent and then raise it or lower it as demographic changes occur and it will be solvent forever.


I'd just raise the cap.
 
2012-06-15 03:11:06 PM  

Wangiss: But now we've moved on to "Debt doesn't matter," "Debt interest doesn't matter," and "Taxes don't matter." Not to mention due process, privacy, etc.

Enjoy your downward spiral. I'm accepting a position on a board of directors in an S-Corp farm near Yosemite, far from military targets and rich in natural resources. I'll be moving there in a couple years, living in a yurt and building furniture out of 30 acres worth of oaks. The other members are also survivalists. If no one has a psychotic episode, we'll be in Paradise.

No profit means no taxes. All the legal benefits and none of the responsibility.

Secret to life: Find your niche!


So how do you justify taking all those legal benefits, using roads, having had services your entire life, and not having to fight for your personal rights, and not contributing to help fix the problems of society?

/Sorry if that sounds biatchy, but that's pretty much one of the side effects of what you're doing.
 
2012-06-15 03:12:11 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: vernonFL: Oh. Now that I look at it, you are right. Medicare is the problem. I don't know how to fix THAT.

Anything that reduces the general cost of health care reduces Medicare (and Medicaid) costs. My pet idea:

Drugs have a lot of low-hanging cost fruit. The amount the US (public and private) pays for drugs each year is more than twice the pharma industry's R&D budget PLUS the amount countries like Canada and the UK pay for drugs each year. Therefore, if we publicly funded pharma R&D at current levels, and literally gave away the drugs to the world, we'd still come out ahead.


That's .... actually a pretty damn farking cool idea. Too bad it's socialisms / giving away tax dollars to furriners / death panels because Congress decided to research improving penis extending drugs instead of grandma's cancer meds.
 
2012-06-15 03:13:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Debeo Summa Credo: Or lower benefits by 30% and it will be solvent for 75 years. Done.

Or you can raise the age to 70 and adjust it in the future for changes in life expectancy an it will be solvent until the next century.

Or you can raise the tax rate from 6.2% employer/employee by 0.1% per year until it is actuarially solvent and then raise it or lower it as demographic changes occur and it will be solvent forever.

I'd just raise the cap.


The CBO released a report two years ago of lots of different options for adjusting the solvency of Social Security. Raising the cap is one of the best options available, but the only option that produces long-term sustainable solvency on its own is shifting entirely from wage indexing to price indexing.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report