Social Security Scam Falling Apart

Now the chicken come home to roost – this social security calamity is the beginning of inevitable sovereign default and bankruptcy, after which even these IOUs are worthless. Siphoning money out of Social Security via these IOUs in effect will just mean you were paying a higher, non-redeemable income tax all those years.

Mr. King,
We've had our differences about SS before and there's no need for a rehash. But since the $2.5 trillion enabled the 70% tax cut on the top income tax rate, it should be obvious how that money should be repaid. If Congress, as one might expect, tries to further cut the benefits for those of us who overpaid the $2.5 trillion, that would be the real tragedy. I hope that you will reserve some of your anger for that possibility.

It's always "tax the rich and give me more," isn't it, frank?

Frank -

There are only so many ways to say the same thing – the reason our government is failing us is not for lack of income, but because of uncontrolled and irresponsible spending. Raiding the SS fund merely enabled this behavior and allowed them to spend without making any tough choices – something every politician avoids.

We are now at the point where it is no longer possible to hide from the bad decisions of the past. Rather than dealing with the problem we are now debating measures that will further exacerbate the problem of fiscal recklessness.

For the first time ever, the fate of our future prosperity is no longer in our own hands, but in the hands of our foreign creditors. This debt should now be viewed as a matter of national security, because in a short while the Chinese and others will directly control our economic options.

It's ironic that we seem to be moving toward a more socialist society now, ignoring the example of what happened in USSR when government controlled all aspects of life. It was clearly a failed experiment, yet we persist in believing it will be different for us if we just get those rich people to pay back a little more.

It's depressing watching this happen, hearing the lies from our "leaders", and trying to educate unenlightened people like you about the real dangers we face from our own government.

Roysoldboy and Irreverend,
If I have learned anything during my time on this earth, it is that we cannot trust the federal government with our money. They will steal it, waste it, and pass it out to their cronies and pet special interests every single time. Trusting the government to handle the SS trust fund is like trusting a junkie to hold onto a needle full of heroin. The only thing we can expect from the federal government is it's constant expansion, it's constant intrusion. Obama is just the latest and greatest example of it. The government has "helped" us to the point of bankruptcy, and they show no signs of letting up until they finish the job.

Depressing is the word for it, Irreverend.

On a related note, did y'all notice that the Barney Frank-designed House package to redo the financial rules included a $4 trillion provision to bail out the big financial institutions in the future ? The "too-big-to-fail" boys would get a permanent assurance of future bailouts. That's beyond depressing. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ

larry,
Wealth confiscaters like Frank always amaze me. They act like personal income belongs to the government instead of the people who earned it. This reflects the sad state of today's Democratic party, who are little more than socialists in disguise. Whatever happened to Democrats like this guy:

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."

All the above quotes came from President John F. Kennedy.

Come to think of it, I do remember what happened to Democrats like him. Kennedy was assassinated…by a communist.

I like the Kennedy quote, but it works a whole lot better if the money freed up for consumption by the tax cut stays in the country. If the balance of trade is right at 0% – neither surplus or deficit, an extra dollar of discretionary income will generate about five or six bucks of consumption. But if it's spent on foreign goods it just barely replaces itself. That is our most important problem.

larry d.,
No, I simply want some of the excess money that I was taxed returned to me. Isn't that how "conservatives" put it? By 1982, when SS was "fixed", it was clear, even to the Reagan administration, that the economy was not being stimulated enough for the Reagan tax cuts to pay for themselves as economist Arthur Laffer had posited. Reagan was forced to increase the top rate by 3% and was scrambling to find ways to raise revenue. The huge SS surpluses hid a goodly portion of the mountain of red ink that the foolish income tax policy generated, and allowed it to continue. As with most middle class folks, my tax burden actually increased. This was one of the largest transfers of wealth ever and the first of the succession of balloons that our economy has been based upon ever since.

Mr. Irreverend,
I agree with much of what you have to say, but investing the SS surplus in T bills was actually the right thing to do, since it lowered the cost of the deficit while providing what was (at least then) the safest investment available. The problem was the accounting fiction which kept it off the books and hiding the true size of the deficit.
I'd also disagree with your assertion that we are moving towards socialism. Over the last thirty years we have actually moved towards a corporate state. Witness the lack of anti-trust action, witness the reduction in regulation of business by design, and by underfunding of regulatory agencies, witness the conversion of American businesses to transnational conglomerates with no ties to this country, witness the corruption of government by the huge sums of money that only they can provide, witness the subservience of government by implementing a disastrous trade policy at their behest, witness the bailout, and witness the protection of the health care industries in the quest for "reform".
I recently read that government revenues cover only 40% of spending. The sheer magnitude of the deficit, much less the debt, suggests that spending cuts alone will not produce fiscal integrity.
Today, Thom Hartmann reported that over a hundred Congressfolk are sending a letter to Obama demanding that he designate China as a currency manipulator. I'm sure Obama will predictably refuse, but it will be interesting to see what the Chinese reaction will be.

Mr. King,
This isn't about wealth confiscation. This is about people paying their fair share. The effective tax rate for the wealthy was reduced from 72% to 15% at the same time as deregulation, "free" trade, unregulated financial "instruments", and government debt exploded opportunities for those who had the capital. In effect, the opportunities for capital v. labor became totally skewed in favor of capital at the expense of labor. The share of the economy attributed to manufacturing and financial speculation were totally reversed. It should be obvious to even the most biased observer that government actions have created a situation where those with wealth can easily thrive, while those with only their labor to offer do not. As a mechanical systems analyst, I can tell you that the key to restoring a system which once worked well and now is failing is first identifying what has changed between when it operated correctly and the failing status quo. Reagan certainly didn't originate deficit spending, but it is plain fact that the debt exploded on his watch, and it exploded once again when Bush replicated Reagan's mistake, and is once again exploding as Obama frantically tries to reinflate the balloon economy we have left.
Your citation of Kennedy does not quite fit in this scenario. Kennedy did cut the top rate, but he cut it from a truly usurious rate above 90% to the 72% which existed until Reagan. Even a "wealth confiscator" like me is not proposing a return to the rate which Kennedy established. Clinton was able to partially restore some semblance of fiscal sanity with a mere 3% increase of the top rate. By the way, I didn't know that Allen Dulles was a communist.

The real story here is that in 2005, when GW Bush was trying to get folks interested in fixing Social Security, the projected date that payouts would exceed intake was 2018. Thanks to the recession that Obama "inherited" from Bush and then made exponentially worse, we got there eight years early.

It isn't about people paying their "fair share," frank. It's about the other guy paying his "fair share."

"Under-funding regulatory agencies"? The world you envision is nightmarish.

Flagstaff – I think you mean thanks to the recession that Obama's 2006 elected Dem congress gave him. This was a present to get him elected. They blocked attempts by Bush to react and failed to react when things got bad for the American people ie: when fuel prices went over the top and when the housing market could have been saved and the blow lessened. They knew that keeping the people pinned with overwhelming fuels prices that this thing would collapse and that they would get their "Change".

Frank:

I appreciate your thoughtful insight and agree that socialism in the classic sense was probably the wrong term. It might be better described as modern progressivism, whereby government becomes more directly involved in free enterprise for the "greater good of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful". This is best illustrated by the stated intentions of the 82 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (from WikiPedia):

"According to its website, the CPC advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare", fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government."

In my opinion, "Fair Share" is merely a codeword for taking from those who create wealth and distributing it to those who don't. Sounds like you lean toward this view from your comments.

While the goals and ideology of the CPC appear noble it only creates a larger bureaucracy and more dependence (and control) of American citizens by their government.

I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and contrast it to the proposed form of government advocated by the CPC. It should become very clear why many of us feel the country is moving in the wrong direction.

Irreverend, you have pounded the nail clear through the board with one swing of the hammer of truth in the way you talk about Fair Share and how those of the socialist bent think. Also, you have mentioned a thing that they can't really defend any of their thoughts against, the Declaration of Independence, and I might add that they want to avoid the Preamble of the Constitution. However, why should they read the Preamble when they want to ignore the whole document that has been our guiding force all these years. Their leader has said more than once that the Constitution just gets in the way like those of us who refuse to get out of the way so he can insert his ideas of government.

I can appreciate the concerns about taking from one group of people and giving to others because that is exactly what happened with the SS surplus. It was money taken from the middle and lower classes and given to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. All I am saying is that when it comes to paying that money back, it should come from those it was given to, not from those who had the money taken from them.

I think it was given to welfare mothers, frank. Does that mean they owe me? Or maybe the military could give me a tank as repayment.

larry d.,
Since Clinton "reformed" the welfare mothers out a lot of money, I'd go for the tank.

Mr. King,
Didn't you once propose a top rate of 50%, ya ole wealth confiscator?

Looks to me like Frank's a pretty hard guy to argue with.

He's pretty much only got one point, but he sticks to it tenaciously:

"Tax the rich and give me more."

frank,
With the highest income tax rates being 35% for the high income earners and businesses, and the lowest tax rates being less than zero with nearly half the country paying nothing or getting a net return from the government, don't you think it's bizarre to refer to the people paying the MOST in taxes as the ones not paying their "fair share" ? Only wealth confiscators think like that.

And while I'm glad you don't wish for a return to 70% or 90% tax rates, only those with a wealth confisctor mindset even bring those numbers up in conversation these days. The rest of us realized how wrong that was long, long ago.

Regarding Reagan, you might want to look at how spending increased during the Reagan years to explain why the tax cuts didn't "pay" for themselves. Revenue went UP after the Reagan tax cuts, just like Laffer said it would, but for every dollar in increased revenue, three more dollars were spent.

Mr. Frye,
Thanks for the compliment.

larry d.,
You've been skimming again.

Mr. King,
When you say that some have a tax rate at below zero and some at 35%, you are comparing two different things. The lowest tax rate is actually 10%. The highest is 35%. After deductions, some have an effective rate of below zero, but the same applies to the highest rate of 35%. After deductions, those in the top rate, pay less than 35%. It is also important to recognize that these rates are marginal, meaning that the rate only applies to the amount earned above the threshold. For the top rate, that threshold is about $373,000. That means that for someone earning $375,000, they are taxed at 35% for only the $2,000 that exceeds the threshold. They are taxed at only 10% for the first $8,350,just as those who only make $8350. I have two problems with the present state of the income tax. One, capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. Aside from the issue of fairness, it's ludicrous to think that capital gains must be taxed at 15% to incentivize investors. I've never met a wage earner that wouldn't rather be earning his living from investments. Second, the tax tier stops at $373,000. There should be at least three brackets above this threshold.

Over the last thirty years, the wealthy have gotten much more out of the government than ever before, often at the expense of the lower economic classes. Their federal taxes have been dramatically lowered while the middle class's taxes have increased. Warren Buffett reports that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. At the same time, most of the regulatory structure has been removed, and when the economy failed the wealthy were bailed out with few complaints. "Free" trade laws eviscerated the middle class, while providing new opportunities for investors. The Federal Reserve has forgotten its mandate to eliminate unemployment in favor supporting Wall Street. One could go on and on, but suffice it to say that while the wealthy were handed everything they wanted, the government charged them less for expanding services. These new services allowed the wealthy to thrive at the expense of the middle class. All one has to do is notice the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, whether in terms of earnings, percentage of assets owned, or whatever measure one chooses for proof.

One of the longlasting canards of the right is that the fiscal mess we find ourselves can be fixed simply by cutting spending. They then refuse to cut anything that has to do with the military, or anything which would decrease our global footprint, exempting over 50% of the budget. I would really like to see how that could be done without throwing this country into the mother of all depressions.

As to Reagan, even without the increased spending (primarily at the Defense Dept), the increased revenue did not match the cost of the cuts.

The spending of the SS surplus hid nearly $100 billion of deficit spending per year for the last 28 years. As such, it was money taken from primarily the middle class as their fortunes declined because of government action. I think it is obvious where it went. I think it is just as obvious who should repay it.

What "much more" have the wealthy gotten out of the government than ever before, frank?

Frank couldn't you say the same for $60 per hour button punchers at the auto factories. And the $250k computer programmers and the organized crime bosses we'll call union leaders who pretty much killed the geese with the golden eggs along with their accomplices, our entire govt. Frank how can you say at the expense of the lower classes? We had the richest poor and middle class in the world until the govt and their finacial regulators decided everyone had the right to own a home as well as getting creative with their investments and returning to pre depression policies. We offer our poor more opportunities to pull themselves up from poverty than any other country in the world. FREE housing, healthcare,cars, food, college. The middle class also enjoyed many benefits, overpaid jobs when compared to the same skill set around the world, unemployment during layoffs(and they didn;t have to look for jobs). Company paid medical insurance. And if you had enough kids and a home you could get more back at the end of the year than you paid in taxes. If you want to do something with your life in America you can. If you want to work at it. But the poor and much of the middle class are to used to the govt bailing them out and picking up the tab, or somone giving them a job. It makes it not worth the effort, especially if programmed to think that way since that's what your parents did.

We can rebuild this country with tax cuts and holding our govt feet to the fire to become responsible and frugal with the money they recieve, realize that a strong industrial base and being friendly and helpful to the entrepreneur and not the enemy of prosperity is necessary for all. Stop the govt and union thievery and capital robbing Democrat Banksters like Goldman. F&F and Soros and his hedge fund buddies that were given presents of legislation change and you will see this country thrive.

frank…as he always does….handles a handful of conservatives single handedly with….the truth. Well said, frank.

"Deficits don't matter, Reagan proved that," Cheney boasted. Conservatives may think Cheney's way of thinking doesn't represent the overall conservative, GOP movement….but alas,….it does. Conservatives will be looking to place more of those GOP'ers in office this November

Once more with a bit of feeling…..income tax rates on the richest Americans are at there lowest level in 60 years. Capital gains tax rates are obscenely and injudiciously low….at 15%.
While those tax rates were lowered to help the top 1%…..deregulation of industry was at top speed…..advantaging, once again, the top 1%. If you've been part of the top 1%, you've had a helluva go at it for the last 30 years……but it's the 99%, who have paid increased payroll taxes, and seen their buying power decline…..who, ummm, make up the majority of the country.

Moan about SS all you want to, King……I could "fix" it myself in one short weekend. Means testing for SS recipients in the top 5%, and a reduced payroll tax rate (say 2-3%) on EVERY dollar made to infinity….no more caps.

To those who always rail about taxation……what kind of society cuts kids from health insurance rather than raise taxes on multi-millionaires?

http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/77257-arizona-cuts-children-s-health-insurance-program

frank,
You wrote a lot of words, but it doesn't change the fact that you still refer to those who pay the highest tax rates and the most in taxes as not paying their "fair share," at the same time that 40% of the country pays nothing in income taxes or pay negative income taxes (receive a subsidy) from the government.

And the Reverend cheers on the misinformation. lol.

The Rev also seems perfectly fine with the theft of the SS trust fund, which was the point of my post. As a solution, the Rev thinks the government should rip off taxpayers even more. It's like arguing with chimps.

joe says, "We can rebuild this country with tax cuts and holding our govt feet to the fire to become responsible and frugal with the money they recieve, realize that a strong industrial base and being friendly and helpful to the entrepreneur and not the enemy of prosperity is necessary for all. Stop the govt and union thievery and capital robbing Democrat Banksters like Goldman. F&F and Soros and his hedge fund buddies that were given presents of legislation change and you will see this country thrive."

Standing ovation for joe !!! That is the ONLY way to make this country thrive. The braindead lefties are instead hellbent on destroying the private sector. Makes one wonder where they buy their Kool-Aid.

larry d.,
Some of the things done for the wealthy. We've already talked about the income tax cut. How plain can it be that decreasing the rate from72%-29% is a major change at anyones tax bracket, but for the uber-wealthy, it is a huge windfall. By reducing capital gains to 15%, GWBush created a situation where Warren Buffett reported he paid a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. Did you know that all interest on all loans was tax deductible, just like mortgage interest? How much revenue do you think that that change generated? Did you know that we once had usury laws? It was illegal to charge more that 18% interest, I believe they called it loan sharking. We can talk about leveraged buyouts and destructive capitalism
"free" trade agreements allowing multinationals to search for the lowest labor costs, so that American workers already struggling with flat wages and increasing living costs and higher tax burdens, especially on the local and state level, must compete with workers whose wages would not allow them to survive in our country. All one has to do is observe the bank bailouts and the health reform issue. It was a pretty seamless handoff between the Bush and Obama administrations and objections were pretty quickly dismissed as kooky and not SERIOUS. Look at health care "reform". The end result is a bill which enshrines the role of the the drug and insurance industries with deals made a while back to turn over new customers for crap policies, all subsidized by the taxpayers.

Mr. averagejoe5,
I assume that I'm a bit older than many posters, including you and Da King. I think that it gives me a different perspective. I got my first job almost 50 years ago. But if one came of age in the mid 70's and all they knew of the Democratic party was Carter, Clinton, and the rest, I can understand their disrespect.
When I was in junior high in the early sixties, my class was visited by a guy from the local Kiwanis or Rotary or some such organization. He gave us a demonstration about what we would see in our lifetime. He said that most of us would earn over $3 million in our lifetimes. The workweek would be 32 hours, 4-5 week vacations would be the norm. Health care would be free, as would a college education. He wasn't stupid or naive, but merely projecting data as if the path wouldn't change. As you can see from the gap between reality and this man's projections, things have taken a down turn for the middle and lower classes. Just look at the difference between the massive tax cuts at the top compared to the increases for the middle class. Look at the increase in state and local taxes. I can remember 3% sales tax, no income tax, and no lottery (a tax on the desperate).

You seem to harbor a particular animus toward unions and union workers. I don't know where you found your $60/hr button pushing auto worker, but he is indeed a rare beast. I have been in four different unions. One was very strong, two very weak, and one corrupt. Forty years ago, I made $7/hr. Ibought my one and only new car for $3700. A comparable car today would be almost $30,000. Gas that was $.25 is now $2.75. So, do the math. What would my $7/hr be worth today? As to the strength of unions, that peaked in the early 70's. The last strike I was involved in was 1980. It wasn't because the company and union couldn't agree, it was because the company personnel managergot po'd. He was fired. But the reality is that while in the 60's a union could strike and disrupt a significant portion of production, a strike today would be suicidal for most workers. For that reason, unions activity on behalf of their members has consisted of mainly a rear guard action forgoing raises and protecting benefits like health insurance.

While I admire your belief that we have equality of opportunity, I find it naive. There are other considerations in life that often surpass the financial and career considerations. We are all somewhere between the masters of our ships or a cork floating the ocean.

I disagree about the need for tax cuts. If we are ever going to return to fiscal sanity, it is going to take a variety of changes. But, between the servicing of the debt, and the 50%-60% dedicated to maintaining our perceived role in the world, it would be a real challenge to cut enough out of the remaining budget to close the deficit , much less begin to pay down the debt. I would be extremely interested if someone could work those numbers out to show what spending cuts it would take.

You're right to point out the symbiotic relationship between the financial services and the Democrats. It shows how far right the Democratic party has moved to curry favor with potential donors. But the Republicans are even worse. They march in such lockstep that it is obvious that they are loyal to party first, people second. With the acceptance of this health "reform" plan, the Democrats pull up a close second.

Mr. King,
No one wants to pay taxes. But when one talks of tax burden, I think there are two considerations. One is the ability to pay. The other is what is being paid for. For example, if one guy with and income of $10,000 pays a 10% tax it is a much greater burden than on the guy with the $1million income paying $100,000. One can also wonder of the value of the government services provided to the wealthy compared to the services provided to the rest of us. How much does our country's defense of intellectual property rights benefit Bill Gates? How much the averagejoe? I'd bet that Bill Gates gets more bang for his tax buck than joe. The point is that government maintains an environment where Bill Gates can thrive. That's not to say that Bill Gates is not deserving of his success. It's not to be critical of the environment in which he found success. It is a simple fact that the government has enabled more wealth for him than average joe. Ergo, he has received more service from government, and should pay more.

I'm with you on the bailouts and the bogus healthcare bill, but as far as taxes, the government seizing less of someone's wealth isn't the government giving someone something, frank.

"..the government seizing less of someone's wealth isn't the government giving someone something, frank."

Well…see….yes it is.

When the government cuts taxes on the rich….it does so for the individual benefit of each and every rich American. To argue the contrary is just silliness. ….unless you believe income and capital gains taxes are unconstitutional……which turns silliness into delusion.

The very sad part of dead-ender thinking is revealed in the ignorant and inhumane rhetoric from the right that the richest of the rich need and deserve their taxes cut…..
while at the same time….kids are being taken off of health care insurance programs and the elderly are having home health care benefits dropped for lack of state and federal revenue…..not to mention that 100 state school districts now have a 4 day week for lack of revenues.

You live in an upside-down world because you're co-opt by The Machine, Reverend.

The government taking less away in no way equals the government giving.

larry d.,
What's the difference between "stealing someone's wealth" and paying for the services that government provides? Is it stealing your wealth when a doctor charges you a fee? You may not even want the range of services the doctor performs and charges you for, but you are still bound to pay for them. Does your auto mechanic charge you a fee for his service? Or does he steal your wealth? Our problem is the gap between the costs of the services provided and the ability to pay for them. For those who think we can close that gap by cutting spending alone, I say good luck. I think that the sheer size of the deficit makes that unlikely. But if it's possible, I'd like to see the plan.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "stealing" thing from, frank.

But if you're paying for the range of services a doctor performs for you, the doctor is in no way "stealing." It is a free exchange. If you're forced to pay for the range of services a doctor performs for everyone else, that is something else.

Your argument that "the rich" receive more from the government seems faulty to me in that all Americans are eligible to take advantage of the same benefits the rich have worked hard to utilize. That is the old "equal opportunity" versus "equal results" argument.

Of course an easy counter argument to make would be that the poor receive more tangible benefits in terms of social services, etc. As it stands now, the rich pay the lions share of the federal government's cost by far, while something like 40 percent of the populace pays pretty much nothing. But no one argues the poor should pay more, or their "fair share."

There is obviously an equitable balance that should be strived for. What's fair is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but in my view stressing equal opportunity rather than equal results is what has allowed this nation to achieve its prominent position in the world.

larry d.,
I think I offered a lot of evidence that the tax burdens of the wealthy have been lightened while the middle class's tax burden increased. The increases were not enough to match the size of the tax cuts the wealthy enjoyed, being a major contributor to the deficit. Perhaps you are a benefactor of this policy, perhaps you are just nobler than I, but I don't see the equal opportunity. I see a huge transfer of wealth to the uber-wealthy, at the expense of the middle class, both aided and abetted by government policies.
I'm sorry, you used the expression, "seizing less of someone's wealth", and I equated it with stealing. My bad. But in the long run, someone must pay, and since we're borrowing about 60%, the size of the gap indicates that it will take more than cutting spending to become fiscally responsible. But, again, if that can be done, we'd all love to see the plan.

When folks equate "tax cut" with "transfer of wealth" they pretty much lose me right there, frank.

Frank, I was just reading some of the earlier posts here and it appears to me that you fail to see that the Congress started spending the "excess" Social Security money about 1952. Who controlled the Congress back then? You talk like the whole $2.5 to $3 trillion the government owes all of us was all spent in the eight years of the Bush presidency and that is pure progressive Pelosi talk, for sure. No sir, that spending has been going on for over 50 years and Bush was in office only 8 of those years.

Mr. roysoldboy,
I'm aware that the practice had been going on a long time. But until the 1982 "fix" the amount was relatively small. Some years they took in slightly more than paying out, some years less. But the 1982 "fix" ensured about $100 billion/yr. to hide the true size of the deficit.
I see both parties to blame here. I agree that this isn't all Bush's fault.

It's been a while since I had the "pleasure " of reading the twaddle that passes for Progressive thought on this board. Roy and Larry and AverageJoe, I hope you aren't trying to convince the Rev and Frank about anything. There are some things that just can't be done.

Joe, regarding my comment above, you are right. The quote marks around "inherited" were supposed to signal that I wasn't really throwing a bone to frank and the Rev.

Some of the more ridiculous assertions above:

"the tax burdens of the wealthy have been lightened while the middle class's tax burden increased." Check the data.

"What's the difference between "stealing someone's wealth" and paying for the services that government provides?" This one is actually right, since we pay for government services through taxation under force, over which we have increasingly less control every year. Neither can we control theft under force. Taxation amounts to legalized theft.

"income tax rates on the richest Americans are at there[sic] lowest level in 60 years." Laughable.

"Capital gains tax rates are obscenely and injudiciously low….at 15%." That's a typical European rate. Many are lower. I thought Europe should be our model.

"N. E. Frye–Looks to me like Frank's a pretty hard guy to argue with." "Mr. Frye,
Thanks for the compliment.–frank" I wouldn't be so sure that was a compliment, frank.

"While I admire your belief that we have equality of opportunity, I find it naive. There are other considerations in life that often surpass the financial and career considerations. We are all somewhere between the masters of our ships or a cork floating the ocean." How poetic. Equality of opportunity means that the Government isn't legally allowed to give favored treatment to anybody. Unless it's Democrat-to-Democrat. That isn't a cork you see floating over there.

And now, words from the wise: Thomas Jefferson–"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government."

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. "

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. "

And just to illustrate that seeming contradictions are not necessarily always so:

"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it. "

does not necessarily contradict

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "

What I find lacking in Frank's argument for higher taxes is the fact that higher taxes leave less money in the private sector, and it's the private sector that creates the wealth in this country. The public sector (government) consumes wealth. We do need the public sector to provide some essential services, of course, but the salaries of the public sector are paid for by the private sector, and should therefore be kept to a minimum, because the more wealth there is in the private sector, the more capital there is to create businesses and jobs. I don't look at things as the rich versus the poor like so many left-wingers do. I look at things as what is best for the country as a whole. An overly expansive centralized government, like we have now, is bad for the country as a whole. We don't have the ability to pay for it without hurting the overall economy. That is a self-defeating exercise in futility, leading to an inevitable downward economic spiral. Our current President doesn't seem to understand this in the least, thinking instead that government control will fix things. The history of American capitalism proves him wrong, but that doesn't seem to deter him any. He seems to prefer the inferior socialist model that has failed time and again all the world over. Lord knows why.

That's a good explanation, Your Highness. (The proper address for a King, right?) The term "essential services" can itself be put to good use. We can discuss some of those services, and consider what makes them essential.

Fire departments, police departments. Both are locally supported. Public water supplies. Local again. Those three come to mind as the only three that are exclusively supplied by local government. State and federal agencies that do similar work are generally applied as consultants, to do serious research, or to support federal laws. Education isn't listed, because it could be provided in ways other than through taxation. In fact, some of the brightest minds in our history were privately educated, including by home schooling or self-taught. Same way with health care. There are both public and private medical institutions doing great work.

Now, "health care" (why isn't the term "medical care"?) is to be considered an essential service, only the federal government is in charge of it. It's even considered a right by some.

To quote economist Walter Williams, it isn't a right because it is a "good." That is, it's something that can be bought and paid for, and you can't buy a right. You are born with your rights; they aren't given to you by the government, nor can you buy them.

So I guess they are now "essential services," to be provided distributed by the federal government. Good luck with that.

Flaggie,
Please don't call me Highness. I'm more like the King of Lowness, lol. Or maybe Middleness.

Other than that, well said. I've always liked Walter Williams' clear thinking. It's ridiculous to call heal…um, medical care, a right. We don't have a right to compel someone else to do something for us at their expense.

here ya go Dum Dum:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/deal

I have no problem with a fair tax system paying back the money the government has borrowed, largely to fund wars.
Of course they should not have been allowed to borrow it in the first place, but it is a legitimate debt.
The first part of the solution is to raise the cap on contributions. There is a huge gap in income between the very rich and the rest of us, much greater than in decades past, yet those with inflated incomes get a disproportionate break because the cap on salary subject to FICA is so low. Giant corporations and the overpaid CEO's who run them do not necessarily create a lot of wealth at home. Often most of their labor is outsourced and they spend their money elsewhere. Same for their investments(bank in the Bahamas, yacht on the Riviera, etc). Trickle down economics has been tried and it did not work. Deregulation has been tried and it failed, ,too.

By the way, you can raise my taxes, too so long as it is done fairly. There are lots of important, necessary things that only government on various levels can do and they do cost money. That's OK with me so long as it's spread around.

The second part of the solution is to restore income taxes on the top earners to those under the Eisenhower administration. Remember Eisenhower? The famous Republican president?

Sell some of the Fort Knox gold to fund the bonds in ss name. The gold does not back up the U.S. currence. It is doing nothing be setting there costing tax dollars to guard. I heard a program on NPR where university professors said there is no law against selling the gold.