"Having funded a concerted, structural effort to promote the message that government is inherently wasteful and tyrannical and destructive, America's business leaders are now shocked to find that members of Congress are hostile toward the government?willing to cripple its everyday operations or even send the whole country into default. This alarms them, now.
The ruling business class never really meant that nihilistic libertarian stuff. Wealthy rulers like a big, strong government; government keeps things stable. Government gathers a bunch of money in one place so the wealthy can skim it more efficiently. The revolutionary rhetoric was mostly just an emotional expression of how much the rich personally dislike having to pay taxes, or meet regulatory standards, or submit to a ritual but harmless fine when their activities defraud or poison too many of the masses.
But now these rubes in Congress?these rubes the business class paid to elect?are acting like they actually believe it...This is not what America's corporate leaders meant to buy, when they purchased a government."
Actually Senator Cruz from Texas is anything but a rube, he definitely brea ks the mold of a typical Tea Party politician, he's actually a former child prodigy and near genius, one of the smartest and most qualified people in Congress.
I was surprised at a neighbor who is a card carrying Democrat yet would like to see government shrink down to 1/3 of it's former size. What caused this? He got a tax bill. I wonder how many more card carrying Democrats will jump ship when they get the huge tax bill?
$3,500,000,000,000 Yearly Government spending -$2,300,000,000,000 Yearly Total Tax revenue ----------------- $1,200,000,000,000 Yearly OVERspending
$2,300,000,000,000 Yearly Total tax revenue -$1,950,000,000,000 Entitlement Spending ------------------ $350,000,000,000 Only 15% left to run all the rest of Government
Soo... The Federal government borrows $1,200,000,000,000 to make up the difference between tax revenue and spending. Every year.
Because of the sequester, 2013 may be less than $1,200,000,000,000.
Agreed. A Harvard graduate who actually went to class rather than screwing around playing "community organizer" aka, according to my grandparents, a rabble rouser. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Actually, social security (entitlements) during 2010, total benefits of $71
3 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $781 billion, a $68 billion surplus. And according to the board of trustees, payroll tax income will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefit s through 2087. That's a long time. So, it appears Social Security is an is olated, self supporting system not to be included in budget deficits.
$713 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $781 billion, a $68 billion surplus. And according to the board of trustees, payroll tax income will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087. That's a long time. So, it appears Social Security is an isolated, self supporting system not to be included in budget deficits.
While it is difficult to argue with the simplistic cut on the data shown; It hides many important details.
Start with how is the "surplus" "invested". How much (total) is "invested"? What happens when the "investments" need to be "cashed in" to pay current benefits? How does that impact the Federal budget?
Per the latest Treasury statement, FY2013 spending is actually running 3.7% less than FY2012. That's not a Washington cut, that's in actual dollars. The cut's even larger when adjusted for inflation.
713 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $781 billio n, a $68 billion surplus. And according to the board of trustees, payroll t ax income will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benef its through 2087. That's a long time. So, it appears Social Security is an isolated, self supporting system not to be included in budget deficits.
The mistake there is that a person's current contributions don't begin to cover the benefits promised to them in future years. Something like 80% of the money you paid in went out the door (to current retirees) the second you sent it. So, it's not self-sustaining at all.
It is in effect a Ponzi scheme. Was it always so? Life expectancy changed. Crippled and blind were originally covered right? Then the fields of medicine and psychiatry labeled Millions more people as lifelong DISABILITY cases. It went from being more like insurance for workers to being more like welfare. When they set it SS originally, was it mathematically sound or should they have known then it was a Ponzi scheme?
James Arthur wants every social security scheme to be like a free-standing life-insurance policy - what you pay in is invested in a fund that will be big enough to look after you when you need it.
The Dutch old-age pension works like that, probably because it started off small and grew sufficiently slowly to make it possible.
Nobody else's social security works that way. It doesn't make them Ponzi sc hemes - as long as people keep on getting born, grow up and get jobs it can keep on working, whereas a Ponzi scheme - and the closely related pyramid selling scam - falls over as soon as the promotor exhausts the pool of pote ntial investors.
Wrong.
That was the idea.
Instead of just locking them up in an asylum or a prison, where it costs mo re to keep them alive and supervised.
Bismark labelled it National Insurance to keep his right-wing supporters ha ppy, but he was just stealing his socialist opponents best idea.
It was sound then and it's sound now. Contributions have to be adjusted to match changing circumstances just as with regular disaster insurance, which couldn't pay out if all our houses burnt down or get flattened at once.
The government doing ANYTHING on a sound basis is absolutely impossible - based on history since the tower of Babel. They should damn well have known that it was a Ponzi scheme. The first recipients obviously did not pay in, and just as obvious, there was NO "trust" fund. Is that fraud or what?
If it had been set up like insurance, following that model to date,here would be a large excess.
BS > Instead of just locking them up in an BS > asylum or a prison, where it costs BS > more to keep them alive and supervised. First you asserted that SS is self supporting, then you rationalize it as a MASSIVE welfare program, far outside of it's intended function. Slow Man, GTFO, you're an Australian socialist. You really do poke your nose into things that are definately NOYB.
How much am I supposed to know about the America social security system? So cial security is usually taken to include welfare, though when social secur ity is presented as a national insurance scheme it's usual to confine the b enefits to people who managed to get a job at some point, though you always end up looking after their kids as well, which softens the margins.
Don't be silly. Australia doesn't have an explicitly socialist party. It do es have a Labor Party which is historically socialist, based on one of the world's first and most effective trade union movements, but the Labor Party manifesto doesn't include the word socialism.
formatting link
It does mention social justice, and it's frighteningly left wing by US stan dards, but it way to the right of the Dutch Socialist Party which throws in pacifism and a couple of other silly ideas.
Why should I worry about what you think? Your opinions are largely predicta ble, and totally unoriginal. You are part of the right-wing nitwit backgrou nd noise on this usegroup, and really don't deserve the honour of a respons e.
John Larkin would ask if you'd designed anything interesting recently, but I have a less inflated idea of my own electronic design skills, and a bette r idea of what this usegroup is about.
BS > Instead of just locking them up in an BS > asylum or a prison, where it costs BS > more to keep them alive and supervised. G > First you asserted that SS is self supporting, then G > you rationalize it as a MASSIVE welfare program, G > far outside of it's intended function. BS > How much am I supposed to know about the America social security syste m? Nobody forced you to poke your nose into it! BS > Social security is usually taken to include welfare, though when socia l security is presented as a national insurance scheme it's usual to confin e the benefits to people who managed to get a job at some point, though you always end up looking after their kids as well, which softens the margins.
BS > Don't be silly. Australia doesn't have an explicitly socialist party. Tough shit. You're an outright socialist. BS > It does have a Labor Party which is historically socialist, based on o ne of the world's first and most effective trade union movements, but the L abor Party manifesto doesn't include the word socialism. So you're playing word games?
formatting link
BS > It does mention social justice, and it's frighteningly left wing by US standards, but it way to the right of the Dutch Socialist Party which thro ws in pacifism and a couple of other silly ideas. You're still a socialist. In denial? G > You really do poke your nose into things G > that are definately NOYB. BS > Why should I worry about what you think? BS > Your opinions are largely predictable, and totally unoriginal. I can live with those. So? Did you think liberalism is unpredictable and original? BS > You are part of the right-wing nitwit background noise on this usegrou p, and really don't deserve the honour of a response. Flatterer. BS > John Larkin would ask if you'd designed anything interesting recently, but I have a less inflated idea of my own electronic design skills, and a better idea of what this usegroup is about. And you're so modest! :)
If it's defects bring the US economy to it's knees, the rest of world is go ing to suffer too. Non-US citizens have a very real interest in persuading the US to act rationally.
ial security is presented as a national insurance scheme it's usual to conf ine the benefits to people who managed to get a job at some point, though y ou always end up looking after their kids as well, which softens the margin s.
.
Actually, I'm not. They are much more left wing. You don't have the educati on to appreciate this, but rest assured that extemeist socialists do exist and I'm not one of them
one of the world's first and most effective trade union movements, but the Labor Party manifesto doesn't include the word socialism.
It's America that plays word games. They've decided that socialism and comm unism are the same thing ( which is total nonsense), and enough American po litical propaganda leaks onto the Australian media that the Labor Party see ms to have purged the word from their manifesto.
US standards, but it way to the right of the Dutch Socialist Party which th rows in pacifism and a couple of other silly ideas.
No, but middle of the road as real socialists go (as opposed to the America n frighten-the-children version of socialism).
Your country can't.
One definition of liberalism is a willingness to consider new approaches - they are contrasted with conservatives who want everything to stay the same - so, yes, liberalism tends to be less predictable and more original that conservatism.
However this wasn't an ideological criticism. I was just pointing out that your output is tedious and unremarkable.
oup, and really don't deserve the honour of a response.
Flattery is designed to change the behaviour of the flattered in a way that favours the flatterer. I don't really think that my comment fits that patt ern.
y, but I have a less inflated idea of my own electronic design skills, and a better idea of what this usegroup is about.
True. One of my numerous virtues. But then I've got so much to be modest ab out.
Just like a Ponzi Scheme. ( those that came before )
Did you miss something ?
Even Obamacare required that 90% of premiums be payed out for real health care by the insurance companies. ( because insurance companies were paying out far less then that)
Of course not, idiot. It's a bet, sure, but it's *NOT* sold as an investment. It wouldn't surprise me if you thought you were going to make money on your life insurance, though.
You insist on showing just what an idiot you are, Hammie.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.