I didn't source heritage, and come to think of it you haven't sourced the cbo, I see no link in your post.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/Chapter1.4.1.shtml
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/Chapter1.4.1.shtml
Fix the federal budget tool (how would you do it?)
- Thread starter speedracer
- Start date
what I see in the first chart shown there is basically "Thank Deity Of Your Choosing For Bill Clinton" otherwise we'd be 
ed^3 right now. Bush gives his "overtaxed" pals a cut (granted we ALL got it, but still it benefited more the higher your income) and then started an extended occupation as opposed to a quick spanking like his dad delivered in the middle east. Viola! You now have severe budget stress, the current administration CHANGING NONE OF THAT and increasing the spending in other areas just continues to screw everything up.
ed^3 right now. Bush gives his "overtaxed" pals a cut (granted we ALL got it, but still it benefited more the higher your income) and then started an extended occupation as opposed to a quick spanking like his dad delivered in the middle east. Viola! You now have severe budget stress, the current administration CHANGING NONE OF THAT and increasing the spending in other areas just continues to screw everything up.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']This is exactly my point for the longest time now. Why do we feel we need to have people stationed in bumble all around the world when they're doing NOTHING there? Pull them all home and focus on making OUR border secure and the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
The real question is which countries need multinational corporations in them (backed up by American military muscle) and whether this kind of imperialism actually benefits the American people. There's a lot of positives when it comes to isolationism, but if our country decides to go that route we can't pussy out on things like offshore drilling off the East Coast.
all around the world when they're doing NOTHING there? Pull them all home and focus on making OUR border secure and the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]The real question is which countries need multinational corporations in them (backed up by American military muscle) and whether this kind of imperialism actually benefits the American people. There's a lot of positives when it comes to isolationism, but if our country decides to go that route we can't pussy out on things like offshore drilling off the East Coast.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I can't believe (well I can but I am not pleased about it) that they're extending the Bush cuts. I know people hate Obama (I think he's way too conservative), but I thought most sane people agreed that they needed to go.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) Social Security funds are not part of our expenditures - they contribute to SS and are separate from taxation. To treat them as a portion of taxes is misleading. Please return to point #1.[/QUOTE]
Why not consider Social Security funds as a part of expenditures or as a portion of taxes if they're considered a part of the general fund? Am I missing something here?
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?
2) Social Security funds are not part of our expenditures - they contribute to SS and are separate from taxation. To treat them as a portion of taxes is misleading. Please return to point #1.[/QUOTE]
Why not consider Social Security funds as a part of expenditures or as a portion of taxes if they're considered a part of the general fund? Am I missing something here?
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Why not consider Social Security funds as a part of expenditures or as a portion of taxes if they're considered a part of the general fund? Am I missing something here?
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?[/QUOTE]
Because they are not considered apart of the general fund.
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?[/QUOTE]
Because they are not considered apart of the general fund.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Why not consider Social Security funds as a part of expenditures or as a portion of taxes if they're considered a part of the general fund? Am I missing something here?
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?[/QUOTE]
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/
Also if SS contributions aren't going to be adequate to cover future benefits, then wouldn't you consider the difference to be an expense (one that will have to be covered by taxation)?[/QUOTE]
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']There's a lot of positives when it comes to isolationism, but if our country decides to go that route we can't pussy out on things like offshore drilling off the East Coast.[/QUOTE]
Why? There isn't enough oil out there to sustain us. Might as well leave it until we hit an emergency situation.
Why? There isn't enough oil out there to sustain us. Might as well leave it until we hit an emergency situation.
Actually we pump out quite a bit of oil, just not enough to satisfy demand. We haven't always been dependent on other countries for oil. We can either cut back on use or drill for more, one is easy and dangerous in a variety of ways, one isn't dangerous but isn't likely either.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']The real question is which countries need multinational corporations in them (backed up by American military muscle) and whether this kind of imperialism actually benefits the American people. There's a lot of positives when it comes to isolationism, but if our country decides to go that route we can't pussy out on things like offshore drilling off the East Coast.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's pre-20th century isolationism that Japan practiced, and there's military non-intervention. There's a pretty wide gulf between the two.
Well, there's pre-20th century isolationism that Japan practiced, and there's military non-intervention. There's a pretty wide gulf between the two.
[quote name='Knoell']Nothing like being independent of foreign oil like not using the resources you have at home.[/QUOTE]
Being independent of foreign oil is not possible at our current consumption rate and what do you think happens when our finite supply runs out?
Being independent of foreign oil is not possible at our current consumption rate and what do you think happens when our finite supply runs out?
Our "finite" supply is much larger than you give it credit for. You act is if all oil in the world is found and accounted for, and we know exactly how much we have. That is very untrue, and if you believe it is, prove it.
Also it is funny how Myke disappears as soon as he finds out he doesn't get to hide behind partisonship.
Also it is funny how Myke disappears as soon as he finds out he doesn't get to hide behind partisonship.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Disappeared from what? I'm drunk and tired. What have you produced that's nonpartisan?
[quote name='Knoell']Our "finite" supply is much larger than you give it credit for. You act is if all oil in the world is found and accounted for, and we know exactly how much we have. That is very untrue, and if you believe it is, prove it.[/QUOTE]
No, it really isn't.
[quote name='wiki']Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×109 m3) of crude oil.[/QUOTE]
We use about 18,690,000 million barrels a day (according to the CIA factbook). If we could magically tap every source we have tomorrow, we would have enough oil to last 19.64 years.
So again, what happens after that when our finite sources dry up?
And (besides things like the ANWR) the easy wells have already been tapped decades ago. The oil is there but we are going to have to work for it and spend a ton of money to access it.
No, it really isn't.
[quote name='wiki']Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×109 m3) of crude oil.[/QUOTE]
We use about 18,690,000 million barrels a day (according to the CIA factbook). If we could magically tap every source we have tomorrow, we would have enough oil to last 19.64 years.
So again, what happens after that when our finite sources dry up?
And (besides things like the ANWR) the easy wells have already been tapped decades ago. The oil is there but we are going to have to work for it and spend a ton of money to access it.
[quote name='Knoell']Hmmm combined with imported oil I think we can make it last quite a bit longer and be quite a bit less dependent than not using at all.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, don't you think it would be smart to save what limited supply we have (ignoring the environment aspect) until it is really needed?
The rest of the world is also working with a finite supply.
Hmmm, don't you think it would be smart to save what limited supply we have (ignoring the environment aspect) until it is really needed?
The rest of the world is also working with a finite supply.
[quote name='Sporadic']Hmmm, don't you think it would be smart to save what limited supply we have (ignoring the environment aspect) until it is really needed?
The rest of the world is also working with a finite supply.[/QUOTE]
Yep and when it gets to that point do you really think other countries are going to stand around and say "gee I wish I saved some oil in the ground"
I mean it seems as if you are saying we should wait until the rest of the world runs out of oil to start drilling for ours. Ignoring that that is quite an imperialistic point of view.
If not then when would be a good time to start drilling for ours?
The rest of the world is also working with a finite supply.[/QUOTE]
Yep and when it gets to that point do you really think other countries are going to stand around and say "gee I wish I saved some oil in the ground"
I mean it seems as if you are saying we should wait until the rest of the world runs out of oil to start drilling for ours. Ignoring that that is quite an imperialistic point of view.
If not then when would be a good time to start drilling for ours?
As long as oil is relatively cheap and plentiful, we'll never get off it, we won't even make a decent dent in use. More time and effort needs to go to alternatives to oil then finding more of it. I don't just mean for fuel either, but all the other stuff made form oil like plastics.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Why not consider Social Security funds as a part of expenditures or as a portion of taxes if they're considered a part of the general fund? Am I missing something here?[/quote]
Because its self funding. They consider it a part of the general so they can steal from it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is paid for by the people that use it. If I pay you for a benefit and you use it unwisely that's your budget problem, not mine.
Whether America will be able to cover what it has borrowed from SS is another matter. But it is not an expense and never can be because it is self-funding. If I give a bank a dollar, it doesn't matter what happens to the dollar after that. It is a credit at that point, but never an expense.
This is why, even as a uber-liberal, I'm 1000% against increasing the payroll tax cap. Social security is about as close to perfect as a government program can be. Those that use it pay it. If you start hitting up the rich to fund it, it becomes a wealth transfer program and that IS NOT what it is supposed to be.
The disinformation disseminated on SS, the trust fund, the "lock box", and the benefits schedule is incredible. I've spent a retarded amount of time trying to fully understand it and the biggest problem seems to be that you can't believe a single word coming out of the mouth of any political entity, which is where most of us get a baseline for our understanding.
Because its self funding. They consider it a part of the general so they can steal from it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is paid for by the people that use it. If I pay you for a benefit and you use it unwisely that's your budget problem, not mine.
Social security is legally unable to borrow to cover expenses. If it is inadequate, the benefits schedule will be adjusted. There's no room for negotiation there for people of any political inclination.
Whether America will be able to cover what it has borrowed from SS is another matter. But it is not an expense and never can be because it is self-funding. If I give a bank a dollar, it doesn't matter what happens to the dollar after that. It is a credit at that point, but never an expense.
This is why, even as a uber-liberal, I'm 1000% against increasing the payroll tax cap. Social security is about as close to perfect as a government program can be. Those that use it pay it. If you start hitting up the rich to fund it, it becomes a wealth transfer program and that IS NOT what it is supposed to be.
The disinformation disseminated on SS, the trust fund, the "lock box", and the benefits schedule is incredible. I've spent a retarded amount of time trying to fully understand it and the biggest problem seems to be that you can't believe a single word coming out of the mouth of any political entity, which is where most of us get a baseline for our understanding.
bread's done