How to fix America.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Stop with the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed spinjob.

 

That's where I'm trying to get us to.

 

I see you're still ignoring the Chillean model and the Galveston plan. Too bad for you that there are examples of privatization that are working already.

 

You want to euthanize them via the blue pill.

 

Actually dumping it into the general fund is an excuse for the left to turn it into a welfare program instead of personally paid for insurance. It was always the next step toward making everybody wards of the state.

 

Not if Obummer keeps cutting the payroll tax in his greed for votes.

 

I responded to your thread by creating my own, with actual sensible ideas that are realistic that have virtually no chance of destroying lives.

 

Sez you.


10 char.

 

Says anyone with a semester of history or economics. Your ideas are the simplest of trite, rife with hackney politics. Mixing politics with economics is almost as bad as mixing God and government. You're entire OP reads like an Ayn Rand playbook. Your ideas would either (*)(*)(*)(*) the poor indefinitely, or bring the value of the dollar down so low that people would be trading gold for a loaf of bread. It is passed the Austrian school, but would configure immensely with the "Mesozoic Era"

 

DAVE 8 is making brilliant points-so I will leave it to him to continue educating and I'll address your post----First of all;the proper pronunciation is President OBAMA.
President OBAMA is cutting payroll taxes to keep money in every persons pocket because the GOP refuses to do ANYTHING to help the American people-as the economy continues to recover-the payroll tax will gradually increase to cover the discrepency( AND-OR) the GOP will stop the filibusters to actually find a comprimise to end the Bush tax cuts.
I don't look at it as our Presidents greed for votes-I look at it as a President helping the American people because the FRIGGIN GOP'S you voted into office won't do their jobs.
WORTH REPEATING.
And speaking of the GOP'S you vote into office--this GOP field of Candidates for POTUS in 2012---Every single one of them want to return to status -quo-or WORSE-you know the same as when they (GOP) brought us to our knees in 2007-Especially your front runner MITT--look at his budget plan for the United States before you enter the voter booth.And if he happens to win and that is a big "IF"---then what are you going to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about-you can't because it would be your fault. So everything up to and including the arguments about SS you can kiss goodby.

 

Feel free to explain and defend them.

 

"Excuse for the left"??? All leftists I know of, and all liberals I know of, oppose dumping it into the general fund for that very reason. So you don't know leftists as well as you may think you do, AND your views on this are very much like those of the left, it seems.

 

Addressing JohnO’s points

Point 1.
Reduce federal spending to 15% of GDP within six years. Repeal every measure brought since January 2007. The Tea Party has put forth a substantial number of discretionary spending cuts that combined with the rollback to 1/1/07 will get spending down to a reasonable level. Long-term goal reduce federal spending to 10 or 12 percent of GDP.


Point 2.
Retirement age will need to go to at least 72 and maybe 75 or else the Boomers overwhelm SS.


Point 3.
Trash the whole income tax system and go to a system of tariffs and excises (both explicitly mentioned in the Constitution). In essence a system of consumption taxation. Since nobody can “take it with them” sooner or later all income is consumed and the government gets its piece at that point.


Point 4.
Negative. Repeal every semicolon of ObamaCare.


Point 5.
I’m all for repeal of the Patriot Act in its entirety, but you are kidding yourself if you think all those little “lilypad” base are any major component of Defense spending.

Three things.
a. Massive reform of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These regs are set up to give the providers a good deal, not the taxpayers. These regs challenge the income tax code for being Byzantine.
b. Withdraw our forces from the Balkans. Madeleine’s War is over. Let the euros handle the serbs.
c. Go back to a totally maritime defense posture. Afghanistan has been a logistical nightmare.


Point 6.
Subsumes into the federal spending cuts put forth by the Tea Party.


Point 7.

Not a bad point, but this should not be a function of the federal government.


Point 8.

I am in agreement with this point.


Point 9.

One does not even address the status of existing illegals until the border is fully under control.


Point 10.

Better yet, taper out the federal student loan program altogether.


Some additional things that would help a lot.


Point 11.
Reduce the federal regulatory load by at least 75%. Prohibit agencies from promulgating regulations without explicit authorization for each and every regulation.


Point 12.

Institute a “loser pays” system for our civil courts. This would drastically reduce frivolous and “spray-and-pray” lawsuits.

 

Why not just raise the retirement age to 150 and cut off payments to anyone that isn't already 150 years old. What the hell, if we're going to screw Americans then why not go all-out and screw them completely?

Social Security addressed a serious problem but unfortunately it did so with a poverty level welfare program that was based upon Ponzie-type funding that would be illegal in the private sector. A serious problem incorrectly addressed by government and it is not financially viable. There are far superior options such as privatization where every individual (and their employer) privately funds the program and is fully vested in their retirement. It imposed no financial burder on others and promises far more in financial benefits for the individual.

If FDR wanted to address the problem that 50% of Americans didn't save and invest for retirement, which was the problem at the time, he should have used this approach as opposed to a welfare program funded by others which imposed a huge tax burden on future generations of workers.

 

Great plan to make the 1% even richer at the expense of the 99%.

 

The T-bill rate is pathetic.In fact,I believe it even entered negative territory
for a short while.The rate was near 0.1 for months.With a 52 week
exponential avg. of ... O.17% a couple years ago.
Don't forget within the last year there was serious debate as to whether Banks will now
charge for Savings Accounts.Meaning you have $50,ooo in a Savings account,get NO Interest
and are charged a fee for the deposit,regardeless of time.

 

My politically-unacceptable plan:

Instead of universal Social Security benefits, let seniors take a single $48K alternative tax deduction indexed to inflation. No other deductions are allowed if this alternative deduction is taken. In addition, they receive a tax credit of 50% of the amount they fall short of the deduction. So if they have no income, they would received a $24K refund, paid monthly, which is what SS currently pays. So seniors without any income would be no worse off under this plan. The benefits would phase out as income rises.

Now, let's tackle the bigger problem; Medicare. Voucherize it for all. Everyone gets a $6600 voucher, indexed to inflation, to buy private insurance, which is the cost of current Medicare benefits. You must buy at least catastrophic insurance. Any savings can be placed in health savings accounts to use however you wish on health care needs. States can opt to run their own public option in which case the vouchers would go to the state. This doesn't save any money now but it will as health case costs rise.

To tackle the cost of health care:
1. Patent reform making it harder to patent and maybe cutting the patent terms.
2. Eliminate the employer deduction for health insurance.
3. A universal mandate like ObamaCare except more flexibility in insurance options.
4. Tort reform. Limit non-economic liability to $50K times the number of years left to median life expectancy. Life expectancy in the US is 78 years so if you're 28, the maximum non-economic damage is $2.5M.

 

My joking, INCREDIBLY un-PC plan for fixing SS.

Logan's Run at 75.

Carousel!!!

 

Can everyone get catasrophic insurance? Regardless of their condition or age? I suppose that would be true, but at what cost?

50K limit? In some circumstances that may not cover the needed yearly costs to live with some damage caused by a mistake.

 

I should've mentioned that I think we need community rating. So insurers wouldn't be able to discriminated based on pre-existing conditions and I'd add a rule that 65+ must be treated as a single age group for insurance purposes.

The tort reform is for non-economic damages, i.e., compensation beyond the actual medical costs.

 

It's unacceptable but not for political reasons. It's unacceptable because it makes no sense and contains incorrect information.

Of course a retiree, if they have it, can withdraw literally millions of dollars that are not income to live on. After tax investments which are generally used by high income earners are not taxable income so they're exempt from the "$48K alternative tax deduction indexed to inflation" which would only relate to taxable income. So someone with $100K/yr in non-taxable retirement income would still qualify for the $24K refund

Next is that the average Social Security benefit is only $13K/yr and not $24K/yr. $24K/yr is about at the top of Social Security benefits for an individual. This would over double the Social Security for about 1/3 of those receiving Social Security today and would increase the benefit for all but about 10% of those collecting Social Security.

The actual average cost of Medicare is almost $15K/yr/person and not $6,600. Medicare pays roughly 1/2 of all expendatures for medical services in the United States. Perhaps the $6,600 comes from how much a couple might pay for supplemental Medicare Insurance because I know that's what my parents pay every year and they're on Medicare.

Great, the result would be fewer new drugs being developed. A company would not be willing to spend the money on the research if they believed that another company would take their research and produce the same medication. How about streamlining the approval process instead? Millions of people die because of the FDA regulations that delay the approval of life saving medicines. Additionally allow for the importation of drugs from countries like Canada. These drugs are produced by the same company and cost considerably less. Additionally require the drug companies to comply with fair trade laws that they've been exempted from. Currently they're allowed to fix prices and that is an unfair business practice.

Employee health insurance is a component of a compensation package for the employee. It is no different than wages except it's not taxed as income for the employee. It is a ligitimate business expense and should be deductable. If it's not then companies will just stop providing insurance for the employees. How does this help anyone?

Here's a better proposal. Make all personal expendatures for health care, including insurance, tax deductable. It will provide a financial incentive to people to purchase health which is good for everyone.

The Federal Government has never had any authority to mandate how a person spends their private money. I believe the Supreme Court is going to overturn "Obamacare" for this very reason. Instead the suggestion I made above to make all medical expenses including insurance premiums is a better way to encourage people to voluntarily purchase health insurance.

We should also allow the selling of health insurance across state lines which will create market pressure to reduce the cost of the insurance.

Unfortunately the attorneys will get 40% of this leaving the individual with only $30K/yr to live on. I support tort reform but this seems to be rather short-sighted and not well thought out.

 

So?

Okay. Lower the deduction if you want.

Okay. Raise the amount if you want.

I didn't say patents should be abolished. And I don't think you'd advocate 100-year patents. We can debate how strong patent protection should be if you want.

I have no problem with FDA regulation streamlining.

I'm against reimportation. The result would be fewer new drugs being developed and making them unaffordable for those in countries with lower standards of living. We want price discrimination.

Anything can be considered compensation then. A car. An X-box. Should those be deductible if the employer buys it for the employee? Health insurance is a good/service like every other. Like car insurance. It should be taxed. Yes, it would cause companies to provide less insurance. Good. That's the point.

The the exact opposite of what I want. I want LESS health care spending.

I think ObamaCare will be ruled constitutional but that's besides the point. I wasn't even necessarily talking about a federal mandate.

You wouldn't be able to regulate the insurance then. For example, if a state wants to prohibit discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

$30K isn't enough in non-economic damages? Name a number then.

 

That is a contradiction. "AFTER-TAX" income is net income. There is no such thing as an "after-tax investment" other than an investment you make with net income. Maybe you mean tax-deferred or tax-exempt. Investments that generate income that is not taxed are "tax-exempt" investments, like bonds issued by your local government that are both state tax and federal tax exempt.

And BTW, as a progressive I will NEVER accept incorporating Social Security into the general fund or changing the structure in any way. Raise or eliminate the taxable income ceiling; raise the full retirement age. But keep the Trust Fund and keep the payroll tax.

 

you're right. today we have people like Obama threatening to old people that they won't get their SS checks if the govt can't go into more debt because he refuses to assist in cutting govt spending. i'm sure old folks in the not so distant future will be more than happy to receive their SS checks that are denominated in worthless Federal Reserve Notes

 

He wasn't threatening old people, he was telling them that if Congress did not increase the debt ceiling that they wouldn't get their entire ss checks. That's not a threat, just simply the truth.