State Rep. Antonio Addresses The Romeny/Ryan Budget

[stephen davis]

Just saw this today. Other than with the punctuation, I can't say I disagree.

[Roy Pitchford]

Thanks Jim. Just proof she's toeing the line, spouting off the usual buzz-phrases.

Stephen already addressed a couple of the major ones.

We’ve already tried this theory, and it failed. We’ve seen over the last decade that top-down, trickle-down, upside-down – whatever you want to call it, it just doesn’t work.

Hate to break it to you, but the Keynesian theory from the left hasn't worked either. What were those lines from the President?
"Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected..." (paraphrasing)
"If we pass the stimulus, we'll never go above 8% unemployment." (paraphrasing)
Unemployment has yet to drop to 8% and we've got a boatload more debt on top of it, which reminds me of a Biden quote, "You mean we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? The answer is yes, that's what I'm telling you."

As for trickle-down not working...there's too much regulation. Water trickles down slower when there are obstacles in the way. In the 50s, Disneyland was constructed in 366 days. I'll bet that today, the permit process, environmental impact study, etc. would have delayed it significantly, if not killed it entirely.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/obamas-lat ... y-whopper/

■

Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total "privatization" of Social Security. What President Bush proposed in 2005 was to allow workers under the age of 55 to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Most of their taxes would have continued to go into traditional Social Security.
■Bush’s proposal to create private accounts had so little Republican support in 2005 — when the GOP controlled both the House and Senate — that it was never introduced as formal legislation. We’ve seen no evidence to suggest the idea is any more popular among Republicans now.
■Only one Republican "leader" is currently pushing publicly for Bush-style private accounts, as part of an overall budget plan. He is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior GOP member of the House Budget Committee. His plan currently has only 13 cosponsors, none of them in the GOP House leadership.

The president further distorted the Republican position when he claimed that the GOP plan would "[tie] your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders." That’s not true of the private accounts Bush proposed. Those would have been invested in strictly regulated, broadly based mutual funds, much like the funds in which millions of federal workers invest their own retirement funds.

[Thealexa Becker]

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/obamas-latest-social-security-whopper/

■

Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total "privatization" of Social Security. What President Bush proposed in 2005 was to allow workers under the age of 55 to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Most of their taxes would have continued to go into traditional Social Security.
■Bush’s proposal to create private accounts had so little Republican support in 2005 — when the GOP controlled both the House and Senate — that it was never introduced as formal legislation. We’ve seen no evidence to suggest the idea is any more popular among Republicans now.
■Only one Republican "leader" is currently pushing publicly for Bush-style private accounts, as part of an overall budget plan. He is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior GOP member of the House Budget Committee. His plan currently has only 13 cosponsors, none of them in the GOP House leadership.

The president further distorted the Republican position when he claimed that the GOP plan would "[tie] your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders." That’s not true of the private accounts Bush proposed. Those would have been invested in strictly regulated, broadly based mutual funds, much like the funds in which millions of federal workers invest their own retirement funds.

Economists and politicians have generally eased up on the idea of privatization of SS, which is why the fact that Ryan is pushing is bothers me, it's a tired idea that is just going to complicate matters. There are much simpler fixes, similar to the ones Romney suggested, but a bit more, well, aggressive, that should be implemented.

And the government doesn't borrow from SS, it just takes the surplus. Borrowing implies giving it back. That's another easily fixed problem right there.

[Will Brown]

Generally, the more "contributions" you make to Social Security, the higher your payments are when you go on the rolls. The exception is the very low contributors, who receive more than their contributions would warrant.

So raising the level of income on which "contributions" are compelled would be only a temporary fix, increasing revenues only until the higher earners went on the rolls, at which time the increased revenues would be offset by the increased outflows. And in fact, because Social Security has such a poor record of investing, outflows would increase during the lifetime of the wealthier beneficiaries, compounding the imbalance.

So it would appear that Mr. Ryan understands that increasing the taxed income level is not a solution, but just a political way of kicking the can down the road.

My memory grows dim, but I seem to recall that Social Security income was originally not subject to income tax; but over the years the politicians made it, at least in part, subject to income tax. Apparently it is a rare politician who can take a long-term view of what they are creating.

Long term studies show that the stock market does have its ups and downs, but despite this, money kept in stocks over the long term earns more than other investments. I don't know how they would work a system where some people could put a part of their Social Security "contributions" in investments of their own choosing, because those people would almost certainly end up with more resources than people who stuck with having the government "invest" all their contributions (the government does not actually invest the money; it uses it to pay off loans it has already made, which to many seems like a Ponzi scheme).

I think a better solution would be to have the SS trustees invest the money in a conservative mix of stocks, bonds, and even treasuries, which should solve the problem of a consistent shortfall of investment income that threatens to destroy the system. But then, I would also like to see the government forced to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which would hold down some the the schemes they engage in now.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Thanks Jim. Just proof she's toeing the line, spouting off the usual buzz-phrases.

Stephen already addressed a couple of the major ones.

So Nickie is towing the party line, but you, who can actually have Eisel finish your thoughts are not?

Independents!

And the government doesn't borrow from SS, it just takes the surplus. Borrowing implies giving it back. That's another easily fixed problem right there.

.

[Stephen Eisel]

Economists and politicians have generally eased up on the idea of privatization of SS, which is why the fact that Ryan is pushing is bothers me, it's a tired idea that is just going to complicate matters. There are much simpler fixes, similar to the ones Romney suggested, but a bit more, well, aggressive, that should be implemented.

And the government doesn't borrow from SS, it just takes the surplus. Borrowing implies giving it back. That's another easily fixed problem right there.

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227
Paul Ryan is not talking about a total overhaul...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... act-check/

Here's how it works: For nearly three decades Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes than it paid in benefits. The government, however, spent that money on other programs, reducing the amount it had to borrow from the public, including foreign investors. That's why some advocates complain that Congress has "raided" Social Security.

In return, the Treasury Department issued special bonds to Social Security. The bonds are now valued at $2.7 trillion. They are accounted for in two Social Security trust funds, one for the retirement program and one for the disability program.

The bonds pay interest like other Treasury notes and are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

Social Security is now spending a portion of the interest because it needs cash to cover monthly benefit payments. This year Social Security is projected to pay $789 billion in benefits and administrative costs and collect $623 billion in payroll taxes and taxes on benefits, a shortfall of $166 billion.

About $112 billion of the shortfall is from a temporary reduction in the payroll tax that is scheduled to expire in January. There is no question that money adds to the budget deficit because Congress financed the tax cut through borrowing.

[Stephen Eisel]

Bill Clinton admitting in 2011 that Paul Ryan's budget is a good plan

[Roy Pitchford]

Thanks Jim. Just proof she's toeing the line, spouting off the usual buzz-phrases.

Stephen already addressed a couple of the major ones.

So Nickie is towing the party line, but you, who can actually have Eisel finish your thoughts are not?

Independents!
.

Is it 'towing' or 'toeing'? I've seen it as 'toeing'.

Perhaps you're correct, that I am, myself, doing the same. I would ask, though, who's telling the truth in doing so? Does the Ryan plan change Medicare for anyone over 55? I'd rather stand with the truth.

[Stephen Eisel]

but you, who can actually have Eisel finish your thoughts are not?

Independents!

I am voting for Gary Johnson..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBXgLUS ... detailpage


http://www.youtube.com/user/govgaryjohnson

[kate e parker]

I am voting for Gary Johnson..

good luck with that. you are the 1%....of likely voters.

if obama wins ima hold you personally responsible

[Jim O'Bryan]

Thanks Jim. Just proof she's toeing the line, spouting off the usual buzz-phrases.

Stephen already addressed a couple of the major ones.

So Nickie is towing the party line, but you, who can actually have Eisel finish your thoughts are not?

Independents!
.

Is it 'towing' or 'toeing'? I've seen it as 'toeing'.

Perhaps you're correct, that I am, myself, doing the same. I would ask, though, who's telling the truth in doing so? Does the Ryan plan change Medicare for anyone over 55? I'd rather stand with the truth.

Roy

Sorry the iphone and education often clash.

The Social Security works, we both know it works if it was left alone to do its thing, but then Washington...

"Lockbox" was not a bad idea.

So you screw something up then rally it needs to be fixed. That is an easy one. Address those breaking it.

FWIW


.

[Roy Pitchford]

I honestly haven't got a clue what you said Jim. Maybe a bit here or there. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Ryan Costa posted in your place.

What I did get, I disagree with. Social Security was doomed to fail from the start. I've told the story of Ida May Fuller here before.

[Thealexa Becker]

I honestly haven't got a clue what you said Jim. Maybe a bit here or there. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Ryan Costa posted in your place.

What I did get, I disagree with. Social Security was doomed to fail from the start. I've told the story of Ida May Fuller here before.

Social Security was only doomed to fail if the people who ran it didn't want to adapt it to the changing demography, which they didn't, so I guess you're right in a sense. However, in theory, Social Security is a solid idea.

[kate e parker]

Social Security was only doomed to fail if the people who ran it didn't want to adapt it to the changing demography, which they didn't, so I guess you're right in a sense. However, in theory, Social Security is a solid idea.

"the people who ran it?"

do you even hear yourself?

"social security was only doomed to fail?"

do you even hear yourself?

i wish that i had a "solid" idea this morning....a little backed up and it's after two in the morning. maybe "they" can come in and relieve me. prolly not though since "they" have not come up with a shit tax yet.