It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government

You can steal everything the 1% has LJ- it won't make a bit of difference.

BearMtnHIB wrote: You can steal everything the 1% has LJ- it won't make a bit of difference.

It would certainly make a BIG DIFFERENCE. If the 1% percent gave up everything they have, then the 99% would have it and the 1% wouldn't. You don't see that as a bit of difference?

LadyJazzer wrote: The facts as they exist are that Social Security exists; it's legal; it's solvent for the next 20 years

Solvency would imply that there was sufficient monies coming in to cover the expense of the program - which isn't the case given there is currently a budget deficit in excess of $1 Trillion dollars and Social Security is just another line item within that budget according to the Supreme Court decisions. Even if one were to ignore what the Supreme Court said, as those who maintain Social Security is solvent routinely do, and credit the program with every dollar of privilege tax levied and collected separate and apart from the rest of the federal budget, it still is paying out more than it is taking in and will continue to do so unless the tax rates are again raised and/or the amount of income subject to being taxed is again raised. The "Trust Fund"? Don't make me laugh. In order to redeem the IOU's sitting in those filing cabinets the federal government would have to increase the deficit spending for that year - in other words making Social Security solvent means adding to the deficit no matter how hard one pretends otherwise unless the privilege taxes that have already quadrupled in my lifetime are increased yet again.

"Borrowing" money from your savings account leaving an IOU in its place, and then spending the money you have "borrowed" from the savings account still fails to leave any actual money in the savings account. Borrowing money from other sources (Chinese government for instance) to "pay back" or redeem the IOU you yourself left in your savings account doesn't return the money you borrowed from your savings account - you are still just as far, if not further, in debt than you started off being.

Social Security and Medicare are fiscally insolvent at this point in time, as is the entirety of the federal government, to the tune of over $1 Trillion annually from here on out under the rosiest of predictions, let alone the thorniest. There is simply no conceivable means of doubling the current tax burden to restore fiscal solvency at the federal level, none. The only hope of restoring fiscal solvency to the general government is for it to shed the individual welfare charity programs it contains and once again allow the States themselves to address the individual welfare of their own citizens. Doing this one thing will return the budget of the federal government to less than 10% of the union's GDP instead of a 25%, and growing, share. Failure to do this will result in an ever larger share of the union's GDP being consumed by the federal government instead of the citizens of the States. There is absolutely no hope of changing the fate of the middle class under a scenario where the federal government alone is consuming 1/3 to 1/2 of the union's GDP and still racking up annual deficits of over $1 Trillion dollars trying to be the central collection and distribution hub of the union's charitable activities.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: The facts as they exist are that Social Security exists; it's legal; it's solvent for the next 20 years

Solvency would imply that there was sufficient monies coming in to cover the expense of the program - which isn't the case given there is currently a budget deficit in excess of $1 Trillion dollars and Social Security is just another line item within that budget according to the Supreme Court decisions. Even if one were to ignore what the Supreme Court said, as those who maintain Social Security is solvent routinely do, and credit the program with every dollar of privilege tax levied and collected separate and apart from the rest of the federal budget, it still is paying out more than it is taking in and will continue to do so unless the tax rates are again raised and/or the amount of income subject to being taxed is again raised. The "Trust Fund"? Don't make me laugh. In order to redeem the IOU's sitting in those filing cabinets the federal government would have to increase the deficit spending for that year - in other words making Social Security solvent means adding to the deficit no matter how hard one pretends otherwise unless the privilege taxes that have already quadrupled in my lifetime are increased yet again.

"Borrowing" money from your savings account leaving an IOU in its place, and then spending the money you have "borrowed" from the savings account still fails to leave any actual money in the savings account. Borrowing money from other sources (Chinese government for instance) to "pay back" or redeem the IOU you yourself left in your savings account doesn't return the money you borrowed from your savings account - you are still just as far, if not further, in debt than you started off being.

Social Security and Medicare are fiscally insolvent at this point in time, as is the entirety of the federal government, to the tune of over $1 Trillion annually from here on out under the rosiest of predictions, let alone the thorniest. There is simply no conceivable means of doubling the current tax burden to restore fiscal solvency at the federal level, none. The only hope of restoring fiscal solvency to the general government is for it to shed the individual welfare charity programs it contains and once again allow the States themselves to address the individual welfare of their own citizens. Doing this one thing will return the budget of the federal government to less than 10% of the union's GDP instead of a 25%, and growing, share. Failure to do this will result in an ever larger share of the union's GDP being consumed by the federal government instead of the citizens of the States. There is absolutely no hope of changing the fate of the middle class under a scenario where the federal government alone is consuming 1/3 to 1/2 of the union's GDP and still racking up annual deficits of over $1 Trillion dollars trying to be the central collection and distribution hub of the union's charitable activities.

Then take it from the 1%... that will pay for everything.

Gut the federal goverment? Just won't happen, it is like the fable of the dog chasing the rabbit. The dog is only running for dinner, the rabbit is running for his life.

If America cuts goverment in 1/2, it will be a nice little increase in their takehome pay, but for people on entitlements or earning salaries it will be deadly or have them lsoing their jobs. They will fight with all they have to keep the current system.
There are currently more taxpayers than benefit receivers but the receivers are much more passionate.
One reason why I think Obama will get 4 more years. For a Republican to win, he has to pretty much promise to keep the status quo, and be convincing.

Oh, it will happen at some point in time. It might not be voluntary when it occurs, but it will happen if for no other reason than though the general government views itself as the dog, it is the rabbit.

PrintSmith wrote: Oh, it will happen at some point in time. It might not be voluntary when it occurs, but it will happen if for no other reason than though the general government views itself as the dog, it is the rabbit.

I agree- it's going to happen one way or the other. There's some very painful times ahead for us.

As the government starts cutting all these entitlements it promised (as it MUST at some point)- Americans will realize that they would have been better off with a private system they actually have some control over. This is when America gets a reality check on trusting government to take care of them.

The days when government could spend more than it takes in are running out fast- as soon as our creditors stop buying our debt the gig is up. We are borrowing 1 out of every 2 dollars the gobberment spends now.

Raising taxes will only kill the economy - they may try it- but it won't last long because the results will be devastating- the only way to prosper is to cut the massive overhead we call government.

The reason for the self sufficient topic on here.

BearMtnHIB wrote: She dosn't care PS- she would rather see government grow until it's completely destroys this country.

She dosn't care what it's doing to the middle class- that our government is so big now that the country can not prosper anymore.

Just keep raising taxes- that's the answer.

Does someone have a proposal of how to pay off the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt each working American owes on behalf of his or her country without asking for more money from the people. SS or not whatever, isn't raising taxes part of the solution eventually. I don't want them to go up and I will do my best to make sure the rest of you pay more than me, but aren't they going up on everyone pretty soon?

Even if you get rid of a bunch of programs, won't most of them be left, even if you tax a bunch of rich Americans, won't you still have the tax the crap out of everyone else more and more anyway. If you are fiscally conservative, isn't it better to pay off our debt now vs. later if interest rates on borrowing are high (or consequences like wars).

I don't want taxes to go up now for selfish reasons, esp income taxes, thinking if I can make more now while taxes are low, I will be able to pawn more off on future generations (I paid to educate them and they did not even say thinks once, so). I am curious about those that are arguing they want the best for the country in stead of themselves, why they want to put off paying off our national debt by not paying taxes. Are you waiting on inflation to wipe it away or what is the patriotic strategy? Would the typical self proclaimed conservative be ok with an across the board increase in taxes if it ALL went to paying down debt or alternatively how does one pay it? Would the typical self proclaimed liberal be ok with an across the board reduction in services funding to fund a pay down of debt? Both with the goal of giving us a few more years of debating how to get our neighbor's wealth without trading for it (which is the goal right?)