Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Your "always" correct and we're *always wrong! Never give an inch right COL?

There may be other ways to resolve our problems but the policies we are following clearly show they are NOT working. Why don't you offer some other policies, other then just blindly support what Bush has tried.

I do not know what academic and actual business experience you have but I suspect it is limited.

Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out!!!! ;~D

We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP.

Why should just the "rich" get their taxes raised? If you raise taxes on them, you should raise them for everybody else. Class warfare at it's best.

Social Security and Medicare are types of insurance that people are entitled to

I call B.S. right there.

You say entitled to.

Actuarials would say may have to be paid by or benefit from.

INSURANCE, not entitlement.

That's the problem. You assume that everyone is entitled to because they paid insurance premiums in. I assume that it's there if needed, but otherwise I shouldn't be trying to use it.

That's the difference with what Bush is trying to get done with Social Security. He's trying to get people off the government funds, and on their own, so they don't have to live on the government dime.

Keep crying, it makes you seem the bitter old fool we assume you to be.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers. tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit. This is not the government's money is our my our tax dollars. The best majority of people will not provide for their retirement and if the market were to fall off like he did in 1999 were even worse in 1932, there should be a for to which workers can rely on at retirement.

What George Bush is proposing has nothing to do with safeguarding Social Security. His private account plan does not deal with the funding issue of the baby boomers. In fact he is no way to pay for the conversion from the current system to private accounts which will require trillion to dollars. This solution is to borrow more and see how much more interest we all can pay in the future. The place for private accounts is over and above social security. The simple solution is to raise the limit on Social Security income which will produce about $100 billion more per year for the Social Security trust fund. We should in addition to invest that hundred billion dollars per year and a broad mix of equities to get the benefit of the hire earnings without the added cost of maintaining millions of accounts such as the Bush plan would require and eliminate the individual risk of the market being down at the time of persons retirement.

If Bush wants to look at something that's really in trouble he needs to look at Medicare and Medicaid. The prescription drug plan he approved as an almost three quarters of $1 trillion to 10 year payout of Medicare. How has that help solve the solvency issue for Medicare? Medicaid is also in trouble and the Bush plan to deal with it is to cut the federal contribution and drive up state taxes.

George Bush knows one thing the Loral and spend borrow and spend and hell tomorrow.we are putting our children and grandchildren in a horrible position because we refuse to pay for our current needs. And please don't tell me that we can balance the budget with any series of spending cuts. The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget. We have never had a worst performance by a president concerning the fiscal policy of this country. It I was giving an Academy award for the worst possible actor as president would be George W. Bush.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers

First of all, SS was NEVER intended to be paid, it was just another tax. The age at which people became eligible (when it was instituted) for SS was AFTER their life expectancy was up. The government sold a raw bill of goods. The plan was, everyone was dead before they could collect.

The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget.

This is just patently absurd and false. Neither needs to take place to both balance the budget AND eliminate the deficit. Cap spending increases to the inflation rate, maintain GDP growth at the current 6.6% (for '04) and by 2008 the budget is balanced and deficit gone. Can it happen? yes. Will it? probably not. Trying to put a cap on spending of congress is not likely, after all, they don't want to lose their jobs and they need to bring home the $$ to their constituents. Plus entitlements grow uncontrolled. The GDP growth is not out of the realm of possibilty though.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers. tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit. This is not the government's money is our my our tax dollars. The best majority of people will not provide for their retirement and if the market were to fall off like he did in 1999 were even worse in 1932, there should be a for to which workers can rely on at retirement. What George Bush is proposing has nothing to do with safeguarding Social Security. His private account plan does not deal with the funding issue of the baby boomers. In fact he is no way to pay for the conversion from the current system to private accounts which will require trillion to dollars. This solution is to borrow more and see how much more interest we all can pay in the future. The place for private accounts is over and above social security. The simple solution is to raise the limit on Social Security income which will produce about $100 billion more per year for the Social Security trust fund. We should in addition to invest that hundred billion dollars per year and a broad mix of equities to get the benefit of the hire earnings without the added cost of maintaining millions of accounts such as the Bush plan would require and eliminate the individual risk of the market being down at the time of persons retirement. If Bush wants to look at something that's really in trouble he needs to look at Medicare and Medicaid. The prescription drug plan he approved as an almost three quarters of $1 trillion to 10 year payout of Medicare. How has that help solve the solvency issue for Medicare? Medicaid is also in trouble and the Bush plan to deal with it is to cut the federal contribution and drive up state taxes. George Bush knows one thing the Loral and spend borrow and spend and hell tomorrow.we are putting our children and grandchildren in a horrible position because we refuse to pay for our current needs. And please don't tell me that we can balance the budget with any series of spending cuts. The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget. We have never had a worst performance by a president concerning the fiscal policy of this country. It I was giving an Academy award for the worst possible actor as president would be George W. Bush.

Oh for God's sake COL give it a rest.

Col's proposal for what he woudl do wouldn't come close to eliminating the deficit btw.

tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit.

You just proved that Bush's plan is the right one. Thanks.

How? you may ask. (I assume you'll ask, because you aren't smart enough to see the obvious answer in front of your face).

Because I CAN PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY ALL MY LIFE -- IT IS INSURANCE AFTER ALL -- AND MY FAMILY DOESN'T GET SQUAT FOR IT WHEN I PASS ON. Or, at least they don't get anything close to the benefits that were promised to me.

I die, my benefits die. Too bad for me.

Try this article to educate yourself on that point.

The current system is racist, and based upon the idea that most will not live long enough to collect what they paid in. God knows, there are probably plenty that wish you fell into that category, but lets not go there.

I want very much to live to retire at a reasonable age, be able to enjoy my retirement, and be happy knowing my children, and their children will be financially comfortable because of the ability to pass along my retirement funds to them.

Thanks for the help on this one guys. Having a battle of wits with COL is like fighting an unarmed person.

Draginol

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes as a last resort until the deficit ends and we have payed down the $7.6 Trillion of the debt. If your family spends more then they earn after cutting, you seek ways to increase your INCOME! The point, we can not continue going further and further into debt. Bush needs one of those companies that help people get out of debt!

Terpfan 1980


Social Security is like a long term health policy except it is for retirement. You pay the premium and when you need care it PAYS. The payment of the benefits are not dependent on the stock market that goes up and down. The Bush individual accounts do not solve the funding problem for Social Security. His own advisors have told him that. In addition, without replacing the trillions that the individual accounts remove from the Social Security Taxes, the fund will begin using the Trust Fund long before the 2018 estimated under the existing system.
By the way dmiler- What business education or experience did you say you bring to these issues?

Remenber, the issue is the funding need of Social Security. Even Bush has told us that. Then, do not embrace a change that does not solve the problem you acknowledge exists. That is either dumb or you have a motive other then solving the Social Security Funding Problem as the reason for creating these accounts- like the fat cats who will get Billions in fee's from the little guy!

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes

What part of NONSENSE is still unclear? Below are the actual numbers for '04 (columns are year, GDP, receipts, outlays, deficit/surplus). The following years the GDP grows as the current rate (6.6%), the receipts are actual estimates from a spreadsheet progressive provided on another post, the outlays GROW at 3% (approximated inflation). The deficit goes away, the budget is balanced by '08.

2004	11,552.8	1,883.1	2,287.5	-404.3
2005	12,303.7	2,067.0	2,356.1	-289.1
2006	13,103.5	2,214.5	2,426.8	-212.3
2007	13,955.2	2,400.3	2,499.6	-99.3
2008	14,862.3	2,600.9	2,574.6	26.4

These are for the TOTAL budget (the commonly reported number). For the ON budget, using the same criteria, it takes another 2 or 3 years to get to a surplus. No tax hikes, no cutting expenditures, just capping increases for estimated inflation and maintaining GDP growth (which tax hikes will send plummeting)