Pre-existing conditions

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Point: diehard

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Kudlow versus Kudlow: KUDLOW: Well, we’ve already tackled a big part of the newest entitlement, namely Obamacare. As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that probably next year. I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.



Since your quote comes from the Washington Post (Fake News Outlet) I'd love to see the rest of the quote for context.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Why not? I could - and did - make the argument easily. It's also been done before, why can't we do it again?
Paul Ryan essentially proposed this and had R support. The Ds demonized it (famously showing Ryan wheeling Granny over a cliff) and it died. Raising the retirement age must be done and it has to be done (as Ryan offered) in such a way so that those heading into retirement now are not hurt by it (no time to plan). Ryan set it up so that people over 55 at the time would not be affected.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Paul Ryan essentially proposed this and had R support. The Ds demonized it (famously showing Ryan wheeling Granny over a cliff) and it died. Raising the retirement age must be done and it has to be done (as Ryan offered) in such a way so that those heading into retirement now are not hurt by it (no time to plan). Ryan set it up so that people over 55 at the time would not be affected.
Agreed, and I'd even go farther that it shouldn't affect people over 50 currently, or whenever they decide to make changes. As Jake stated, the changes are easy and every rational person knows it has to be done. Make the changes now or they will become more painful for everyone later. Start raising the age for people under 50 incrementally, start raising the max. 2 moves that should be a no brainer.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Start by raising the income tax on pharmacists to 90% Leave the rest untouched.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Why not? I could - and did - make the argument easily. It's also been done before, why can't we do it again?
Yeah, it’s just as simple as saying if ‘we just raise taxes that we can pay off the debt’. Easy peasy.

Why should people object? Why should they expect someone else to be impacted, but not them? Why shouldn’t government promise extra benefits if taxes are raised that will make it even more difficult to slash the debt? The solution may be simple, but the execution is complicated.

Would you ever make a deal like the following?
You finance my retirement and I promise the next generation will finance yours.

Great deal for the older generation. Some future generation is going to eventually get screwed. It is illogical and irrational.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,067
Reaction score
599
Points
113
Yeah, it’s just as simple as saying if ‘we just raise taxes that we can pay off the debt’. Easy peasy.
Of course it is. The numbers are pretty easy to project. The one assumption is that the economy doesn't tank completely. But I don't think many projections build in a catastrophic economic crash. Oh and there is no debt. It is currently cash positive.

Why should people object? Why should they expect someone else to be impacted, but not them? Why shouldn’t government promise extra benefits if taxes are raised that will make it even more difficult to slash the debt? The solution may be simple, but the execution is complicated.

Would you ever make a deal like the following?
You finance my retirement and I promise the next generation will finance yours.

Great deal for the older generation. Some future generation is going to eventually get screwed. It is illogical and irrational.
I don't think you understand how the system is set up and how the pot of money that should be there has been raided. That's ok, you aren't alone.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Of course it is. The numbers are pretty easy to project. The one assumption is that the economy doesn't tank completely. But I don't think many projections build in a catastrophic economic crash. Oh and there is no debt. It is currently cash positive.

I don't think you understand how the system is set up and how the pot of money that should be there has been raided. That's ok, you aren't alone.
Typical for KGF.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Kudlow versus Kudlow: KUDLOW: Well, we’ve already tackled a big part of the newest entitlement, namely Obamacare. As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that probably next year. I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.



Since your quote comes from the Washington Post (Fake News Outlet) I'd love to see the rest of the quote for context.
In which Larry Kudlow, on Washington Post Live, clarifies his earlier comments about reducing entitlements:


Start at 16:14

"Costa: Does that cut Social Security or Medicare?
Kudlow: It will not"

Kudlow: She was referring to the two big entitlements, I was referring to the remnants of Obamacare... We got tangled up. No, we have no plans to touch the large entitlements."

Man, Kudlow may as well have said "diehard is right, and bga1 is wrong, and when bga1 questions justthefacts and Washington Post Live, he'll be even more wrong."
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Please read carefully, KFC. I didn't say anything about passing those fixes being easy. But the fixes themselves are very easy and if Don did it by EO and nobody ever bothered to check, they would barely notice.

1. Raise retirement age 5 years over the next 10 - or some combination thereof that makes the numbers work (5 over 20, 5 over 15). People live longer now, this only makes sense that we would expect them to work longer. Grandfather close folks in, whatever, just do something.

2. Raise the cap $5K or $10K or whatever number makes it work, in combination with #1 above.


Done.
It's the easiest part of our debt/deficit to fix.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,689
Reaction score
1,297
Points
113
Please read carefully, KFC. I didn't say anything about passing those fixes being easy. But the fixes themselves are very easy and if Don did it by EO and nobody ever bothered to check, they would barely notice.

1. Raise retirement age 5 years over the next 10 - or some combination thereof that makes the numbers work (5 over 20, 5 over 15). People live longer now, this only makes sense that we would expect them to work longer. Grandfather close folks in, whatever, just do something.

2. Raise the cap $5K or $10K or whatever number makes it work, in combination with #1 above.


Done.
just out of curiosity - when you say, raise the retirement age - are you talking about the top end or the bottom end of the scale.

Right now, you can go on SS at 62, but with reduced payments. Full Retirement age depends on date of birth (I was born 9-2-1955, and I hit full retirement age at 66 yrs and 2 months. But, if you delay taking SS after full retirement age, your monthly payments go up 8% a year until age 70, when they top out. Last year, my sister gave me a book on SS as a Christmas present. I can sum up the book in 1 sentence - wait till 70 to file for SS, unless there is no other option.

so, would you raise the minimum age above 62, or extend the maximum age past 70? (I suppose you could also increase full retirement age, and/or reduce the yearly increase after full retirement age and let it top out at 72+.)

By raise the cap, I assume you are talking about the amount of income that is subject to SS taxes. that could certainly be increased on a sliding scale based on income.

and, the other big issue floating out there is means testing. If I make $1-million a year, do I "need" SS? probably not. but I still have a right to claim it.
I would be in favor of using means-testing - maybe on a sliding scale where if your lifetime earnings are over a certain point, you get 80% of full SS payment - and scale it up to some point where you get 0% for the stinkin' rich bracket.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
I’m sure those changes will be really popular. :rolleyes:

Or, you could redesign a mandatory retirement savings system for younger Americans that wasn’t dependent on those younger working generations to pay for retired generations, so than when population growth slows or levels off, SS funds are depleted or more changes required.
So the GOP won't cut spending unless it's popular? Most rational people can understand that we have to do something or the fund will go underwater. Raising the cap would only effect those at the top. A modest increase in the base rate would share the pain. Raising the retirement age is only logical.

Government mandated savings? 2 will be along to rip you a new one for that terrible violation of rights. I'll be holding my breath.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Kudlow versus Kudlow: KUDLOW: Well, we’ve already tackled a big part of the newest entitlement, namely Obamacare. As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that probably next year. I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.



Since your quote comes from the Washington Post (Fake News Outlet) I'd love to see the rest of the quote for context.
The Trump Administration: "Looking into" things very intensely and then doing nothing about them since 2017.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
just out of curiosity - when you say, raise the retirement age - are you talking about the top end or the bottom end of the scale.

Right now, you can go on SS at 62, but with reduced payments. Full Retirement age depends on date of birth (I was born 9-2-1955, and I hit full retirement age at 66 yrs and 2 months. But, if you delay taking SS after full retirement age, your monthly payments go up 8% a year until age 70, when they top out. Last year, my sister gave me a book on SS as a Christmas present. I can sum up the book in 1 sentence - wait till 70 to file for SS, unless there is no other option.

so, would you raise the minimum age above 62, or extend the maximum age past 70? (I suppose you could also increase full retirement age, and/or reduce the yearly increase after full retirement age and let it top out at 72+.)

By raise the cap, I assume you are talking about the amount of income that is subject to SS taxes. that could certainly be increased on a sliding scale based on income.

and, the other big issue floating out there is means testing. If I make $1-million a year, do I "need" SS? probably not. but I still have a right to claim it.
I would be in favor of using means-testing - maybe on a sliding scale where if your lifetime earnings are over a certain point, you get 80% of full SS payment - and scale it up to some point where you get 0% for the stinkin' rich bracket.
I would raise the age on both ends.

I do think means testing could also be a benefit. Not to give anyone $0. But do we need to pay the top of scale 12 times per year for 10-20 years. A lump buyout of some % and take them off the rolls would save $ and admin costs. It would require additional outlay upfront though.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
So the GOP won't cut spending unless it's popular? Most rational people can understand that we have to do something or the fund will go underwater. Raising the cap would only effect those at the top. A modest increase in the base rate would share the pain. Raising the retirement age is only logical.

Government mandated savings? 2 will be along to rip you a new one for that terrible violation of rights. I'll be holding my breath.
I’m not necessarily advocating for or against “govt mandated savings”. It exists, therefore I recognize it.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Of course it is. The numbers are pretty easy to project. The one assumption is that the economy doesn't tank completely. But I don't think many projections build in a catastrophic economic crash. Oh and there is no debt. It is currently cash positive.

I don't think you understand how the system is set up and how the pot of money that should be there has been raided. That's ok, you aren't alone.
Yeah, that’s why I said “future long term solvency” in a earlier post, and yes, SS is projected to have a surplus until 2035 as I also mentioned and linked in an earlier post.

And, I don’t think you understand how the redistribution of wealth by the government works. That’s ok. Most don’t.
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
So the GOP won't cut spending unless it's popular? Most rational people can understand that we have to do something or the fund will go underwater. Raising the cap would only effect those at the top. A modest increase in the base rate would share the pain. Raising the retirement age is only logical.

Government mandated savings? 2 will be along to rip you a new one for that terrible violation of rights. I'll be holding my breath.
No, politicians tend not to do things that aren’t popular and why we get is financial binds.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
No, politicians tend not to do things that aren’t popular and why we get is financial binds.
Really? What percentage wanted the senate to confirm Kavanaugh? What percentage wanted trump to impose tariffs? What percentage wanted trumps tax cuts? None of these things were popular.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Really? What percentage wanted the senate to confirm Kavanaugh? What percentage wanted trump to impose tariffs? What percentage wanted trumps tax cuts? None of these things were popular.
Trump isn’t a typical politician. And, I said “tend” which means frequently or regularly, but not always.

But I would disagree that those items are unpopular b/c they didn’t have over 50%, or whatever amount you think it takes, for it to be popular enough. It very much depends on the type of issue, the fragmentation of public opinion, the complexity of the issue, its personal impact on a particular individual, etc. I’d include Obamacare with your examples.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
No, politicians tend not to do things that aren’t popular and why we get is financial binds.
Massive tax cuts for millionaires aren't popular and they did it anyway. Besides, how can we say they're not popular? The R's have campaigned for years on making the government live within its means just like the family around the kitchen table. And they won. So why aren't they following through?
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36
Soooooo, you think the politicians are the problem here?

Kinda seems to me like the media has to get it's house in order. It's a disgrace. Anchors engaging in racist discussions on air saying that white men are the biggest threat to the country?

I think media accountability is one of the biggest problems facing our country today. Seriously. The media is dividing us, adding fuel to the fire of every hot button issue, and all for ratings, ratings, ratings.
But you ok with the President constantly saying illegal immigrants rapists and murderers and immigrants attempting to migrate into the US or criminals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Trump now campaigning on the idea that Republicans will better protect Obamacare than Democrats.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Trump now campaigning on the idea that Republicans will better protect Obamacare than Democrats.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Obamacare is a steaming pile of crap. Certainly it will always be the Dems first order of business to increase the size of government, government power and socialism.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Trump now campaigning on the idea that Republicans will better protect Obamacare than Democrats.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Obamacare is socialized medicine! The Dems want Socialized Medicine! Therefore the Dems will destroy Obamacare!

Winning votes by promising to protect the thing you tried to kill 70 times. That takes some amazing shamelessness.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,113
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
Obamacare is socialized medicine! The Dems want Socialized Medicine! Therefore the Dems will destroy Obamacare!

Winning votes by promising to protect the thing you tried to kill 70 times. That takes some amazing shamelessness.
We have had socialized medicine since the 60s. The battle is always to prevent more. It will be very hard to go backward. Dems indeed want to "destroy" obamacare, and institute single payer. Is this even debatable? The chance to stop obamacare was 2012.
 
Top Bottom