Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

Ok, how about a reasonable solution;
*Return to the tax rates of the 90's, where we were running a budget surplus.
*Re-instate the Glass-Segal act; making it illegal for banks to gamble with the money of it's account holders like they have been.
*Force banks to allow mortgage modifications already available under existing legislation.
*Increase funding to higher education and to trade schools; While will result in retraining and rebuilding manufacturing while encouraging inovation.
*Eliminate subsidies to companies making billions in profit, such as the oil industry. Those subsidies were put in place when oil was $20 a barrel and they needed those subsidies in order to break even.

Are you going to tuck me in and read me a bed time story?

I was convinced that he was trolling after I saw this.

/shakes Slip

Slip!!! Don't be such a Jaerik minion! Gah! Don't agree with people who make sense! What are you thinking?!?

I guess you're right. I should have known better.

1) I'm against allowing other government programs to borrow from it. But the bonds they do give in exchange are government bonds, the same as when you buy a savings bond. They are exactly the same as cash, so the idea that social security is broke is simply a well told lie.
2) It's been running surpluses for decades, taking in more than it puts out. With zero changes it would be able to pay 80% through 2070.
3) Raising the maximum contribution to SS, (called the SS salary cap) would help to solve short term shortfalls due to the widening income gap. Long term this isn't feasible because those retirees who contribute more would take out more years later.
4) Increase age expectancy has risen greatly. A 1-2 year increase in the minimum age to collect, or a 1-2 additional wait before you can receive maximum benefits would solve much of the solvency concerns.
5) The idea of privatizing social security was floated during the Bush (2) administration. Had they succeeded, millions of seniors SS benefits and accounts would have been wiped out in the economic crash of 2007/2008, as many 401(k) retirement plans were.
6) The downturn for income in SS is partly due to the high unemployment rate. Job programs, (like the one being pushed now) would add an estimated 1.8 million jobs and protect millions more from losing their jobs. Lower unemployment would mean more revenue for Social Security

Chill

Honestly dosen't matter.

If a republican wins, congress will eventually make enough *** adds and complaints to get majority democrats in the house and senate, and block any good idea that any republican president will have.

Same for Obama. except republicans in congress will block anything he wants to do.

Wanna fix our economy? stop bullshitting about what side someone is on, take 10 minutes to listen to the *** idea before forming an opinion, and stop taking bribes.

/rant mode off

Ron Paul FTW

lolol, this guy is crazier than the communists he purports to fight.

The fact that Ron Paul is snubbed by the Right while Newt Gingrich is now embraced (after Bachmann, Perry and Cain have all failed) shows exactly where the kingmakers in the Republican party lie.

Let me explain why this is ridiculous.

Social Security is in fact broke. As in all of the collected money that was supposed to go in to a fund has been robbed.

In it's place, they left I.O.U. notes.

You do remember when Obama threatened seniors with lowering social security? That's because there is no fund, there is just a bunch of IOU notes there.

Also the whole thing is like taking your own retirement money out of the bank, spending it all on hookers, then placing a note saying "I'll totally replace all of the money in here some day" in the bank account.

I used to hear my father listening to Rush Limbaugh on a near-daily basis. About 50% of the time he would be angry at w/e ideas were being shared about the other side.

Politics just makes me feel angry, worried, and helpless. So I don't vote and I don't read the fkin news, because god help me I'll desperately search for another country to live in.

First, the funds held by Social Security measure right now at 4.3 trillion (with a T) dollars and will pay at 100% benefits with no changes to the system till 2037 and afterwords be able to pay out 75% of benefits. My apologies for my earlier error, Here is the correction.

Second, they are not IOU's. Never have been. These are the same bonds purchased by major banks, other countries, and major financial institutions. They're the most secure form of bonds because the US has never ever missed a interest payment. They've also never failed to pay when someone cashes in on the bonds. Which happens on a regular basis. Bush 2 tried to have the Social Security fund invest in the stock market instead during his term. Had that happened they funds would have been worthless in '07-'08. The bonds on the other hand, lost no value during that time. In fact, they went up. So to your earlier reference of;

That reference MIGHT work if 100% of the time when you went to cash in that note, they gave you 100% of the money owed.

The debt ceiling "crisis" earlier this year was a manufactured one. The issue was over allowing the Treasury to issue MORE bonds, including the ones purchased by the Social Security Administration, business, other countries, individuals, ect.

Saying that the social security checks wouldn't go out.... Well I'd chaulk that up to a half truth at best. What would happen with Social Security is that they wouldn't be able to purchase any more bonds until they were made available. That would be QUITE the cluster%#(*# for the ones writing the checks as that's never happened before, and could result in a delay in checks.

Also, the social security fund itself is not, and never has been, part of the national budget. It can't be, by law. Look at your paycheck, where it says "FICA", that is what pays into Social Security and Medicare. That's the only source of funds for Social Security, by law. Here's the kicker. Only the taxes on the first $106,000 you make goes into that, so those who make a great deal more contribute nothing more. Seem fair to you?

Eh, the difference there is not as big as you make it out to appear. The bond is owned by the same entity, namely the US government. So in a way that acts as an a placeholder for the cash, moving money from one account to another.

Granted a bond is a still a desirable paper to hold, and the government can sell those bonds instead of creating news ones to replenish the account from which they borrowed.

The problem boils down to the government still is spending more than its taking in on a regular basis. The government needs to keep borrowing or to balance the budget in order to keep spending.

While this is true, the negative connotation of the term "IOU" implies to many that they are completely without worth and can never be cashed in. That's not the case with government bonds. In fact after the US's credit rating was downgraded earlier this year, the very next day the top bond that was selling? The US treasury bond.


On this I completely agree.

The major argument in US politics right now, including the debate before the super committee, is how to balance the books; I.E. how to make sure what we spend is equal to or less than what we take in.

I think it's worth noting what's making up the majority of the deficit spending.



The Bush tax cuts make up more than 50% of the contribution to the deficit. They were implemented under this premise; If you reduce the amount of taxes taken in, that money will spur growth, and enough growth to offset the reduction in taxes taken in. At the same time it's supposed to reduce unemployment.

The problem is that didn't happen.

It's been known since the 80's that for every dollar given as a tax break, it generates $0.25 in growth. That's a $0.75 loss in tax revenue. And that's under ideal economic conditions, of which these are not. Secondly, that assumes the tax breaks are spend in the first place. Since being implemented, consumer spending has not gone up, but consumer savings has. In other words the money is being banked instead of contributing to the economy. Thirdly, when they were implemented, unemployment continued to rise, alone with CEO pay.

So now the right is asking people to take cuts in medicare, medicade, veterans benefits, education, and a myriad of other social programs in order to balance the books, while adamantly refusing to drop a single tax break or raise tax rates.

Ya know what? I'll let the good gentleman from Vermont answer that for me.

Bravo!!

Corrected for spelling. That was driving me nuts after I wrote it and saw those two mistakes. lol

So long newt, It was nice knowing you. The backlash/recoil begins today. The whole segment is interesting but the highlight clip played on all of tonight's news shows starts at ~4:28


Immigration sunk Perry. While Newt's nuanced answer is far more polished than Perry's "you guys are heartless" sulking, I doubt in the end it won't just end up weighing him down.

Romney will likely use this to showcase how consistent he's been on his own immigration position. Which is something he definitely needs right now.

oh yea... LOL at that ridiculous chart a few posts ago. You're logic is just flawed. Tax cuts produce far more growth than their actual value (1 dollar of cuts produces more than a dollar of growth). This is why our economy is so much bigger now than it was 30 years ago (before the Regan tax cuts). I pray that we don't actually repeal those cuts so you liberals don't need to find out just how wrong you are about how they help the economy.

If you take that money out of the system, middle class wages will sink even further as workers will have more pressure to compete and make up the difference for their bosses and investors. The economy will slow down even faster and total tax revenues into the government will drop.

And you've taken how many economics classes?

(d-e-n-i-a-l)

...and I've taken a few throughout my education. But you don't need an economics course to understand the concept that individuals make far better decisions with their own money than the government does spending it for them.

I was looking at Parry, but now that he signed the same sex marriage pleg. I couldn't vote for him. I am pro same sex marriage. I maybe conservative but I don't follow any religion.

So I guess my vote would goto Mitt Romney.

How do I get to vote you may ask. As you will note I am Canadian. Well. I'm married to an Amarican who doesn't follow what is happening in the world so I point him to the direction I think should be.

Prove it?
You're saying a lot of things with no data to back them up :<
As a mathemetician, I don't believe anything without proof.

I like the atheist canditate.... oh wait.

Maybe by 2040 or so we'll have some representation, but I won't hold my breath...

Well, what does a store do if they want to generate more revenue? They hold a "sale" where they lower their prices. The increased value they provide their customers via the event spurs them to spend their money. The customers get a deal, and the store makes more sales. It's win/win. The same thing works on the macro level with government, they more money you let everyone keep, the more everyone uses it to generate more tax revenue.