Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:18:35 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>> The core problem is, and has been since the 1970s, that the electorate
>> wants more government services than it's willing to pay for. The voters
>> are quite fully prepared to cut Someone Else's Program or raise Someone
>> Else's Taxes to fix it...but not their own.
>
> How is this even a problem?
>
> The _problem_ is that the great masses of ordinary people in the electorate
> have not managed to place firm enough control of the government in their
> own hands to ensure that the government will act decisively to cut those
> programs, and raise those taxes, that would be fully acceptable to the great
> majority of the people.

I've been seeing periodic articles for decades discussing this. The core
problem has been and remains that while a large majority of voters agrees
that spending needs to be cut it's been impossible to find even a simple
majority that can agree on a single program the cuts should affect.
Suggesting "all of them" is torches-and-pitchforks time.
It's why "waste" is such a popular target for politicians...nobody objects
to cutting waste. Of course after decades of cutting waste it still seems
there's an awful lot of it out there. But hope springs eternal. This time will be completely different from the last 20 or 30 times I'm sure.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5-a46b-b340b0f6f4f1n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> ... surely
>>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime,
>>>> it is
>>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
>>>> to an
>>>> even keel!
>>>
>>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
>>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
>>>
>>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
>>>> cutting
>>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
>>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
>>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
>>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
>>>>
>>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure
>>>> they
>>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
>>>
>>> Who is this "they"?  The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>>> just don't see it.  It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>>>
>> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
>> Security. It will cost you.
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
>>
>> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social
>> Security, "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate
>> various social safety nets that taxpayers pay for.  The current tactic
>> of refusing to raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is
>> the _same_ thing the Republicans have done several times before and
>> the only budget cuts they are ever willing to accept are to the
>> so-called "Entitlement" programs, especially Social Security.  Which
>> aren't actually entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them
>> separate from the general income tax.
>
> Never gonna happen.

Yet the Republican party keeps trying over and over again.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/7/2023 1:18 PM, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> ... surely
>>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
>>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back to an
>>>> even keel!
>>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
>>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
>> The budges were in surplus in 98,99,2000 & 2001
>> Gingrich retired in 99
>>
>> Note that budget went into deficit under Shrub almost immediately despite maintaining control of the house & the senate (until a GOP senator left the party)
>> Do you think it might have had something to do with the 1.8 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through?
>
> It had more to do with the end of the dot com boom.
>
> The budget surplus in the late 90s and early 2000s was something of an illusion. The economic boom temporarily flooded the coffers with money, but the underlying structural problems were never addressed, instead, spending was _increased_ during that period, so that when the boom ended, the problem was worse than ever.
>
> The tax cuts may or may not have made it worse, but they weren't the underlying problem. The core problem is, and has been since the 1970s, that the electorate wants more government services than it's willing to pay for. The voters are quite fully prepared to cut Someone Else's Program or raise Someone Else's Taxes to fix it...but not their own.
>
> Actually fixing the problem is going to require serious taxation (and not just of the rich), _and_ spending cuts to popular programs.

“A Balanced Budget is Now “Irresponsible”” by Simon Black
https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/a-balanced-budget-is-now-irresponsible-145741/

“Consider that, in fiscal year 2022, the federal government brought in
$4.9 trillion dollars of tax revenue. That is an insane, record amount
of money. With nearly $5 trillion in tax revenue, you should be able to
do anything you want and still have plenty of money left over. In fact
even as recently as 2019, $5 trillion in tax revenue would have easily
covered the entire federal budget, with about half a trillion dollars
left over to start paying down the debt.”

“So if the government had just kept the budget steady, last year it
could have paid off $500 billion of its $31.5 trillion national debt.
Instead, last year the government opted to ADD $1.375 trillion to the
debt by spending $6.27 trillion in FY2022. Now politicians insist on
raising the debt ceiling, so that the government can once again borrow
to overspend its revenue by more than a trillion dollars.”

The financial apocalypse or Civil War II of the USA is nigh.

Lynn

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted, in part:

> “Consider that, in fiscal year 2022, the federal government brought in
> $4.9 trillion dollars of tax revenue. That is an insane, record amount
> of money. With nearly $5 trillion in tax revenue, you should be able to
> do anything you want and still have plenty of money left over. In fact
> even as recently as 2019, $5 trillion in tax revenue would have easily
> covered the entire federal budget, with about half a trillion dollars
> left over to start paying down the debt.”

It is true that 2019 is only three years ago.

Has there been any inflation between now and 2019, so that bringing
expenditures down to 2019 levels is no longer feasible?

Are there any unusual circumstances that led to increased expenditures?

Well, there was the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was the war in
Ukraine.

In any case, preventing the debt ceiling from being raised means the
government has to cut spending *immediately*. Since we know that
cutting spending and raising taxes are both very difficult, these things
have to be done gradually.

After all, this was a completely unexpected surprise - since when a
Republican is President, the debt ceiling is always raised automatically
when necessary. And if the United States were to default on its debt,
the consequences would be calamitous. Criticizing the Republican
Party for engaging in irresponsible brinkmanship on this issue is
reasonable.

And their goals are also transparent. They want the U.S. to be poor and
miserable, not happy and prosperous, in time for November 2024, so that
Trump or another Republican can become President.

To put it bluntly, the behavior of the Republican Party is nothing short of
treasonous. Ukraine is at war, and so any interference with the ability of
the United States to send military equipment to it now, and send the bill
later - hopefully, to Russia - ought to be seen in the same light as interfering
in the ability of the U.S. to wage war against Japan and Germany in World
War II, since in both cases death and destruction are happening in a civilized
nation of free men.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.

From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
federal government spending
19% social security
15% health
14% income security
12% national defence
12% medicare
11% education, training employment and social services
8% interest
4% veterans' benefits and services
2% transportation
2% general government
1% other

where do you think they're going to make cuts?

On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamish.laws@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>
> From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
> federal government spending
> 19% social security
> 15% health
> 14% income security
> 12% national defence
> 12% medicare
> 11% education, training employment and social services
> 8% interest
> 4% veterans' benefits and services
> 2% transportation
> 2% general government
> 1% other
>
> where do you think they're going to make cuts?

Well, instituting a proper national health service would roughly halve
that 15% health + 12% medicare, and probably takes a chunk out of that
4% veterans' services too. Lets say that frees up 13% by eliminating the
whole health insurance industry, bringing the US wasted overspend on
health down to the same ballpark as other democratic countries and quite
possibly getting you away from being bottom of the league for survival
rates across most demographics too.

The "lost" jobs from the parasite sector can be spread around, thanks to
the increase of small businesses that can now survive due to not having
to spend a colossal portion of their revenue on shitty privatised
healthcare.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"But people have always eaten people!
What else is there to eat?
If the Juju had meant us not to eat people
He wouldn't have made us of meat!"
-- Flanders & Swann

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 03:29:46 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >... surely
>> >we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
>> >expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back to an
>> >even keel!
>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
>
>The budges were in surplus in 98,99,2000 & 2001
>Gingrich retired in 99
>
>Note that budget went into deficit under Shrub almost immediately despite maintaining control of the house & the senate (until a GOP senator left the party)
>Do you think it might have had something to do with the 1.8 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through?

IIRC, it had to do with spending the $1.3T surplus from Clinton's last
budget (which was, indeed, also a Republican budget).

I mean, God forbid that the National Debt should go /down/!

>> >Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by cutting
>> >Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
>> >much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
>> >indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
>> >because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
>> >
>> >They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure they
>> >can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/31/republicans-threats-cut-social-security-medicare-are-record/
>"In fact, Republicans have routinely proposed cutting earned Social Security and Medicare benefits. For instance, last year’s Republican Study Committee’s fiscal 2023 budget proposal would have raised the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages, given Big Pharma sole discretion to set prescription drug prices, reduced seniors’ ability to choose their own doctors, started to privatize Social Security and put access to long-term care at risk by slashing and capping Medicaid. Perhaps Mr. Perry never bothered to read this budget, even though the RSC represents over 150 (more than 70 percent) of his Republican colleagues.
>
>Before Mr. Perry tells seniors not to worry, maybe he should explain why seniors (current and future) shouldn’t be worried that so many Republicans are on record as proposing to cut their financial and health security — and why so many Republicans are willing to risk an unprecedented government default that would threaten their earned benefits."
>
>> >If the United States is in imminent danger of economic collapse, it's
>> >because of the malicious actions of the Republicans, in an effort
>> >to appease the greed of the rich ...
>>
>> If the entire top 5% richest people in the US were liquidated, along
>> with their families, and their entire net worth confiscated, it would
>> be enough to run the current Federal budget for ... what, a few months?
>> A year?
>
>The top 10% of people in the USA have 76% of the wealth, the bottom 50% have 1%.
>https://financebuzz.com/us-net-worth-statistics
>
>In 2022 total household wealth cleared 150 trillion in the USA
>https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/10/household-wealth-tops-150-trillion-for-the-first-time-despite-surge-in-debt.html
>
>So the top 10% has over 110 trillion
>
>The current national debt is 31 trillion
>https://www.pgpf.org/national-debt-clock#:~:text=The%20%2431%20trillion%20(and%20growing,to%20measure%20our%20national%20debt.
>
>total spending in 2022 was under 10 trillion (https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_chart#:~:text=Estimated%20spending%20for%202022%20was,Recession%2C%20to%2041%20percent%20GDP.)
>
>
>So your guess is right up there with Quaddie's understanding of human nature for accuracy.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <trspqo$3f1tl$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> ... and the only budget cuts
>they are ever willing to accept are to the so-called "Entitlement"
>programs, especially Social Security. Which aren't actually
>entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them separate from the
>general income tax.

Speaker of the House McCarthy, just today in his "pre-SOTU-rebuttal
to what Biden is sure to say" said that any cuts to Social Security
or Medicare are, quote, "Off the table."

Means testing ... Biden voted for it and we've got it. Social
Security "contrubutions" are taxed when they're taken from you
and paid to current recipients, and 50% of them are taxed again
when the current recipient receives them.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:10:18 PM UTC+11, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> >> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> >> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
> >
> > From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
> > federal government spending
> > 19% social security
> > 15% health
> > 14% income security
> > 12% national defence
> > 12% medicare
> > 11% education, training employment and social services
> > 8% interest
> > 4% veterans' benefits and services
> > 2% transportation
> > 2% general government
> > 1% other
> >
> > where do you think they're going to make cuts?
> Well, instituting a proper national health service would roughly halve
> that 15% health + 12% medicare, and probably takes a chunk out of that
> 4% veterans' services too. Lets say that frees up 13% by eliminating the
> whole health insurance industry, bringing the US wasted overspend on
> health down to the same ballpark as other democratic countries and quite
> possibly getting you away from being bottom of the league for survival
> rates across most demographics too.
>
> The "lost" jobs from the parasite sector can be spread around, thanks to
> the increase of small businesses that can now survive due to not having
> to spend a colossal portion of their revenue on shitty privatised
> healthcare.
>
No arguments there, but do you think the GOP would be in favour of a nationalised health system?

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:35:08 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:18:35 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> > The core problem is, and has been since the 1970s, that the electorate
> > wants more government services than it's willing to pay for. The voters
> > are quite fully prepared to cut Someone Else's Program or raise Someone
> > Else's Taxes to fix it...but not their own.
> How is this even a problem?
>
> The _problem_ is that the great masses of ordinary people in the electorate
> have not managed to place firm enough control of the government in their
> own hands to ensure that the government will act decisively to cut those
> programs, and raise those taxes, that would be fully acceptable to the great
> majority of the people.

On the contrary, the electorate does have the government firmly under its collective control. They just can't _agree_ on an agenda to implement. If one side or the other (actually there are multiple sides, it's probably at least a five-cornered overlapping standoff) actually gained dominance within the electorate, they would indeed quickly impose their preferred taxes and spending changes. But right now they can't because no viable coalition can form with the current political machine.

>
> Well, that may not be the _only_ problem. Neither a socialist revolution at
> the expense of the rich, nor an attempt to ameliorate the situation of the
> Republican base at the extent of the "racialized" is exactly a desirable
> solution, and the preceding paragraph could well lead to just those two
> choices.
>
> The ideas Trump expressed, but would never dare to act upon, are the
> first steps towards sanity.
>
> America is not running out of resources or labor. It _is_ running out of
> foreign exchange with which to buy cheap stuff from China. That may
> be a problem, but it is survivable and manageable.
>
> John Savard

Yes. It's not the only problem, not even the _biggest_, but it's one of the big ones. There's also the low female fertile rate (which is common across the West), the breakdown of cultural trust, the religious disputes, the class war between the working class and the educated elite (which cuts across both political parties), and it's all interconnected.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>> ... surely
> >>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
> >>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
> >>> to an
> >>> even keel!
> >>
> >> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
> >> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
> >>
> >>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
> >>> cutting
> >>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
> >>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
> >>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
> >>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
> >>>
> >>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure they
> >>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
> >>
> >> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> >> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> >> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
> >>
> > Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
> > Security. It will cost you.
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
> >
> > Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social Security,
> > "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate various social
> > safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic of refusing to
> > raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is the _same_ thing
> > the Republicans have done several times before and the only budget cuts
> > they are ever willing to accept are to the so-called "Entitlement"
> > programs, especially Social Security. Which aren't actually
> > entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them separate from the
> > general income tax.
> Never gonna happen. But, Social Security might be means tested like
> Australia did a decade or so ago. Bill Gates won't get a SS transfer
> each month into his checking account. Of course, the SS check would be
> a rounding error for him.
>
> Lynn
The issue with means testing is that it sounds good, and it might even make economic sense, but political and culturally it's toxic. SocSec is popular and politically untouchable in part because it is mostly universal. Once you start breaking up that sense of 'everybody', the politics of the whole thing suddenly changes.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:18:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted, in part:
> > “Consider that, in fiscal year 2022, the federal government brought in
> > $4.9 trillion dollars of tax revenue. That is an insane, record amount
> > of money. With nearly $5 trillion in tax revenue, you should be able to
> > do anything you want and still have plenty of money left over. In fact
> > even as recently as 2019, $5 trillion in tax revenue would have easily
> > covered the entire federal budget, with about half a trillion dollars
> > left over to start paying down the debt.”
> It is true that 2019 is only three years ago.
>
> Has there been any inflation between now and 2019, so that bringing
> expenditures down to 2019 levels is no longer feasible?
>
> Are there any unusual circumstances that led to increased expenditures?
>
> Well, there was the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was the war in
> Ukraine.
>
> In any case, preventing the debt ceiling from being raised means the
> government has to cut spending *immediately*. Since we know that
> cutting spending and raising taxes are both very difficult, these things
> have to be done gradually.
>
> After all, this was a completely unexpected surprise - since when a
> Republican is President, the debt ceiling is always raised automatically
> when necessary. And if the United States were to default on its debt,
> the consequences would be calamitous. Criticizing the Republican
> Party for engaging in irresponsible brinkmanship on this issue is
> reasonable.
>
> And their goals are also transparent. They want the U.S. to be poor and
> miserable, not happy and prosperous, in time for November 2024, so that
> Trump or another Republican can become President.
>
> To put it bluntly, the behavior of the Republican Party is nothing short of
> treasonous. Ukraine is at war, and so any interference with the ability of
> the United States to send military equipment to it now, and send the bill
> later - hopefully, to Russia - ought to be seen in the same light as interfering
> in the ability of the U.S. to wage war against Japan and Germany in World
> War II, since in both cases death and destruction are happening in a civilized
> nation of free men.

No. _Hard no_ . Ukraine is not the USA, and comparisons like the above are automatically wrong. I support a certain amount of assistance for Ukraine, but there are good arguments for and against for how much and in what form and how much to risk larger-scale war. But Ukraine is still a foreign state, and America's first obligation, as with any sovereign state, it to herself.

But opposing aid to Ukraine is _not_ equivalent, or even in the same category, as opposing an ongoing war effort by the United States itself, and such opposition is by definition _not_ treasonous.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>> ... surely
> >>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime,
> >>>> it is
> >>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
> >>>> to an
> >>>> even keel!
> >>>
> >>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
> >>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
> >>>> cutting
> >>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
> >>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
> >>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
> >>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
> >>>>
> >>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure
> >>>> they
> >>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
> >>>
> >>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> >>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> >>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
> >>>
> >> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
> >> Security. It will cost you.
> >>
> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
> >>
> >> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social
> >> Security, "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate
> >> various social safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic
> >> of refusing to raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is
> >> the _same_ thing the Republicans have done several times before and
> >> the only budget cuts they are ever willing to accept are to the
> >> so-called "Entitlement" programs, especially Social Security. Which
> >> aren't actually entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them
> >> separate from the general income tax.

And that money, 100% of it, is spent the same year it comes in, replaced by IOUs. Congress uses accounting methods that would get you or me prosecuted to hide the scale of the problem (and that's both parties).

> >
> > Never gonna happen.
> Yet the Republican party keeps trying over and over again.

Not lately.

One of the turning points in the 2016 primaries was when Trump came out _against_ touching SoSec, in terms the common GOP voter could agree with. Interestingly, the news media, both the lefty and righty wings, immediately laughed and assumed Trump had just _lost_ the GOP primary, on the premise that GOP voters wanted 'entitlement reform' (meaning cuts or privatization). They didn't, and never particularly did. That was always a business-wing goal.

Of course Trump had read the GOP voters right, yet again. The lesson seems to have partially penetrated, at least some of the GOP in Congress are finally saying that SoSec is off limits. Of course the Koch/Chamber wing still presses for it, just as they endlessly press for immigration amnesty, and McConnell is their guy when the chips are down. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out this time.

We saw the same thing with Obamacare. The GOP base hated it, for various reasons, but the business wing _liked_ it because they hoped to offload their employee health care costs onto the taxpayers. Thus the GOP congressmen in their pocket would talk about opposing it, but had no intention of ever doing so in reality. McConnell scheduled something like 30 meaningless symbolic repeal votes, which eventually led to Ted Cruz's famous angry denunciation on the Senate floor a few years ago.

When Trump was inaugurated, he told the GOP then in control in Congress to send him the Obamacare repeal bill...and _they didn't have one_ . They hadn't even really ever tried to imagine one. The GOP caucus immediately fell apart into competing factions over what to do now that they actually had at least the theoretical power to repeal it, all the symbolic votes suddenly revealed as being BS. If the GOP leadership was capable of shame, that would have been a stinging public embarrassment.

The McConnell/Ryan leadership of the GOP only really had a few goals, one of them was immigration amnesty, another was tax cuts for business, and probably further trade liberalization. They never thought they'd have to deliver on anything else they'd talk about at election time...and then along came DJT to force the issue out in the open.

In article <k4gek5Fep45U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamish.laws@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> >> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> >> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
> >
> > From
> > https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
> > federal government spending
> > 19% social security
> > 15% health
> > 14% income security
> > 12% national defence
> > 12% medicare
> > 11% education, training employment and social services
> > 8% interest
> > 4% veterans' benefits and services
> > 2% transportation
> > 2% general government
> > 1% other
> >
> > where do you think they're going to make cuts?
>
> Well, instituting a proper national health service would roughly halve
> that 15% health + 12% medicare, and probably takes a chunk out of that
> 4% veterans' services too. Lets say that frees up 13% by eliminating the
> whole health insurance industry, bringing the US wasted overspend on
> health down to the same ballpark as other democratic countries and quite
> possibly getting you away from being bottom of the league for survival
> rates across most demographics too.

IMHO, if FDR had managed to create a national health service in 1930s,
the percentage of GNP going to it would be roughly the same as the
current mixed health system (it might even be greater). Pointing at
other countries results is ignoring the fact that those other countries
aren't dealing with US patients (who don't obey instructions - the
resistance to masking and vaccinations during the recent Covid-19
pandemic is not isolated), US liability law (which is only interested in
extracting money and has no interest in improving results), and hospital
status games (must have the newest equipment to be considered first
class). You might argue that a national health system might discourage
hospital status games, but I doubt that any members of the US House of
Representatives would accept have no 1st class hospitals in their
districts.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:

> No. _Hard no_ . Ukraine is not the USA, and comparisons like the above are automatically wrong.

The people of Ukraine are human beings.
Period. Therefore, you are automatically wrong.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:07:59 PM UTC-7, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

> Speaker of the House McCarthy, just today in his "pre-SOTU-rebuttal
> to what Biden is sure to say" said that any cuts to Social Security
> or Medicare are, quote, "Off the table."

Good for them, we'll see what the GOP is willing to agree to, in that case.

Speaking of rebuttals to the State of the Union Address, Sarah
Huckabee Sanders said:

“The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left.
The choice is between normal or crazy.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Oh, wait; she's Republican. She thinks Trump, MTG, and Lauren
Boebert are normal, and Biden is crazy?

Her words were true, just not in the sense she meant them. An
example of going so far off the deep end that one comes full
circle around to the truth.

John Savard

On 2/8/23 08:22, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>
>> No. _Hard no_ . Ukraine is not the USA, and comparisons like the above are automatically wrong.
>
> The people of Ukraine are human beings.
> Period. Therefore, you are automatically wrong.
>
> John Savard

What is that supposed to mean? So are the people of Russia and every
other country(but now I am starting to have my doubts about Canada).

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:15:20 AM UTC-7, Magewolf wrote:
> On 2/8/23 08:22, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:

> >> No. _Hard no_ . Ukraine is not the USA, and comparisons like the above are automatically wrong.

> > The people of Ukraine are human beings.
> > Period. Therefore, you are automatically wrong.

> What is that supposed to mean? So are the people of Russia and every
> other country(but now I am starting to have my doubts about Canada).

Here is what I meant, explained clearly and in detail that you may hear
and understand.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him
shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another,
as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the
sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say
unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was
a stranger and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye
visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous
answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or
thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee
in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and
came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say
unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on
the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat: I
was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in:
naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then
shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto
thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as
ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go
away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew 25:31-46

The people of South Vietnam are human beings.
Inasmuch as North Vietnam invaded the land of South Vietnam, it
invaded the soil of the United States of America.

The people of Ukraine are human beings.
Inasmuch as Russia invaded the land of Ukraine, it invaded the soil
of the United States of America.

Whatsoever you do to the people of the least of the countries of the world,
it is as if you have done it to the people of the United States of America, and
thus, being righteous, it shall not shirk from defending those people as it
would defend its own.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:56:53 PM UTC-5, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:18:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted, in part:
> > > “Consider that, in fiscal year 2022, the federal government brought in
> > > $4.9 trillion dollars of tax revenue. That is an insane, record amount
> > > of money. With nearly $5 trillion in tax revenue, you should be able to
> > > do anything you want and still have plenty of money left over. In fact
> > > even as recently as 2019, $5 trillion in tax revenue would have easily
> > > covered the entire federal budget, with about half a trillion dollars
> > > left over to start paying down the debt.”
> > It is true that 2019 is only three years ago.
> >
> > Has there been any inflation between now and 2019, so that bringing
> > expenditures down to 2019 levels is no longer feasible?
> >
> > Are there any unusual circumstances that led to increased expenditures?
> >
> > Well, there was the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was the war in
> > Ukraine.
> >
> > In any case, preventing the debt ceiling from being raised means the
> > government has to cut spending *immediately*. Since we know that
> > cutting spending and raising taxes are both very difficult, these things
> > have to be done gradually.
> >
> > After all, this was a completely unexpected surprise - since when a
> > Republican is President, the debt ceiling is always raised automatically
> > when necessary. And if the United States were to default on its debt,
> > the consequences would be calamitous. Criticizing the Republican
> > Party for engaging in irresponsible brinkmanship on this issue is
> > reasonable.
> >
> > And their goals are also transparent. They want the U.S. to be poor and
> > miserable, not happy and prosperous, in time for November 2024, so that
> > Trump or another Republican can become President.
> >
> > To put it bluntly, the behavior of the Republican Party is nothing short of
> > treasonous. Ukraine is at war, and so any interference with the ability of
> > the United States to send military equipment to it now, and send the bill
> > later - hopefully, to Russia - ought to be seen in the same light as interfering
> > in the ability of the U.S. to wage war against Japan and Germany in World
> > War II, since in both cases death and destruction are happening in a civilized
> > nation of free men.
> No. _Hard no_ . Ukraine is not the USA, and comparisons like the above are automatically wrong. I support a certain amount of assistance for Ukraine, but there are good arguments for and against for how much and in what form and how much to risk larger-scale war. But Ukraine is still a foreign state, and America's first obligation, as with any sovereign state, it to herself.
>
> But opposing aid to Ukraine is _not_ equivalent, or even in the same category, as opposing an ongoing war effort by the United States itself, and such opposition is by definition _not_ treasonous.

Its not treasonous. But its very, very stupid.

The war in Ukraine has been an incredible bargain for the US. Altogether, we've sent about
40B in aid so far, mostly in the form of military and humanitarian aid, not cash. A lot of
what's been sent is aging military equipment we no longer use, but which was specifically
constructed for the purpose of defending against a USSR/Russian attack in Europe. Its now
being used exactly as intended.

For a spend of less that 6% of the us 2022 defense budget, the US (and other countries;
the US contribution is about 40% of total), Russian military capability has been
degraded by at least half, at the cost of zero American military lives.

That's very wise spending.

pt

Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> Never gonna happen. But, Social Security might be means tested like=20
>> Australia did a decade or so ago. Bill Gates won't get a SS transfer=20
>> each month into his checking account. Of course, the SS check would be=20
>> a rounding error for him.=20
>>=20
>> Lynn
>=20
>The issue with means testing is that it sounds good, and it might even make=
> economic sense,

Actually it very likely doesn't make even economic sense. You're talking
about perhaps 1% of the claimants, which is likely a drop in the bucket.

And those people, for the most part, have paid into the system for their
entire lives a rate higher than average, why shouldn't they get the benefit
they've worked for?

Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrot=
>e:
>> On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:=20
>> > On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:=20
>> >> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:=20
>> >>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,=20
>> >>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:=20
>> >>>> ... surely=20
>> >>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime,=
>=20
>> >>>> it is=20
>> >>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back=
>=20
>> >>>> to an=20
>> >>>> even keel!=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,=
>=20
>> >>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by=
>=20
>> >>>> cutting=20
>> >>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so=
>=20
>> >>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,=
>=20
>> >>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself =
>was=20
>> >>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure=
>=20
>> >>>> they=20
>> >>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republican=
>s=20
>> >>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I=
>=20
>> >>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.=20
>> >>>=20
>> >> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social=20
>> >> Security. It will cost you.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-presid=
>ent-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=3D=
>winpstoreapp&cvid=3D66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a=20
>> >>=20
>> >> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social=20
>> >> Security, "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate=20
>> >> various social safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic=
>=20
>> >> of refusing to raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is=
>=20
>> >> the _same_ thing the Republicans have done several times before and=20
>> >> the only budget cuts they are ever willing to accept are to the=20
>> >> so-called "Entitlement" programs, especially Social Security. Which=
>=20
>> >> aren't actually entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them=
>=20
>> >> separate from the general income tax.=20
>
>And that money, 100% of it, is spent the same year it comes in, replaced by=
> IOUs. Congress uses accounting methods that would get you or me prosecute=
>d to hide the scale of the problem (and that's both parties).
>
>> >=20
>> > Never gonna happen.
>> Yet the Republican party keeps trying over and over again.
>
>Not lately.

You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
not? That's about as lately as it gets...

Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> > On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> >> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>> ... surely
>> >>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
>> >>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
>> >>> to an
>> >>> even keel!
>> >>
>> >> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
>> >> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
>> >>
>> >>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
>> >>> cutting
>> >>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
>> >>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
>> >>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
>> >>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
>> >>>
>> >>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure they
>> >>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
>> >>
>> >> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>> >> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>> >> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>> >>
>> > Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
>> > Security. It will cost you.
>> >
>> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
>> >
>> > Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social Security,
>> > "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate various social
>> > safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic of refusing to
>> > raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is the _same_ thing
>> > the Republicans have done several times before and the only budget cuts
>> > they are ever willing to accept are to the so-called "Entitlement"
>> > programs, especially Social Security. Which aren't actually
>> > entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them separate from the
>> > general income tax.
>> Never gonna happen. But, Social Security might be means tested like
>> Australia did a decade or so ago. Bill Gates won't get a SS transfer
>> each month into his checking account. Of course, the SS check would be
>> a rounding error for him.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> The issue with means testing is that it sounds good, and it might even make economic sense, but political and culturally it's toxic. SocSec is popular and politically untouchable in part because it is mostly universal. Once you start breaking up that sense of 'everybody', the politics of the whole thing suddenly changes.

It's not so much that it couldn't be done at all, it's that it would need to
impact an extremely limited set of individuals (0.1%? 1%) and/or be
implemented over a long time period. Telling 20-somethings that Social
Security will be means-tested when they retire is very different from doing it
to 60-somethings.
You don't have to go very far down the percentile ranks for wealth before
Social Security becomes a significant, or the predominant, source of income.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamish.laws@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>>
>> From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
>> federal government spending
>> 19% social security
>> 15% health
>> 14% income security
>> 12% national defence
>> 12% medicare
>> 11% education, training employment and social services
>> 8% interest
>> 4% veterans' benefits and services
>> 2% transportation
>> 2% general government
>> 1% other
>>
>> where do you think they're going to make cuts?
>
> Well, instituting a proper national health service would roughly halve
> that 15% health + 12% medicare, and probably takes a chunk out of that
> 4% veterans' services too. Lets say that frees up 13% by eliminating the
> whole health insurance industry, bringing the US wasted overspend on
> health down to the same ballpark as other democratic countries and quite
> possibly getting you away from being bottom of the league for survival
> rates across most demographics too.

I suspect that it would do more to improve average life expectancy than it
would to save money. There's currently a huge life expectancy gap between
the lowest 1% income (72.7 years for men) and the highest 1% (87.3 years).
Even with single-payer you still have to deal with much higher salaries,
higher infrastructure costs, higher liability costs (and the resulting
defensive testing) and limited access (especially in rural areas).
Studies vary, but the expected savings on administrative overhead is closer
to 10% than 50%.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On 2/8/2023 12:37 PM, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> ... surely
>>>>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
>>>>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
>>>>>> to an
>>>>>> even keel!
>>>>>
>>>>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
>>>>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
>>>>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
>>>>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
>>>>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure they
>>>>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>>>>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>>>>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>>>>>
>>>> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
>>>> Security. It will cost you.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
>>>>
>>>> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social Security,
>>>> "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate various social
>>>> safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic of refusing to
>>>> raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is the _same_ thing
>>>> the Republicans have done several times before and the only budget cuts
>>>> they are ever willing to accept are to the so-called "Entitlement"
>>>> programs, especially Social Security. Which aren't actually
>>>> entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them separate from the
>>>> general income tax.
>>> Never gonna happen. But, Social Security might be means tested like
>>> Australia did a decade or so ago. Bill Gates won't get a SS transfer
>>> each month into his checking account. Of course, the SS check would be
>>> a rounding error for him.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> The issue with means testing is that it sounds good, and it might even make economic sense, but political and culturally it's toxic. SocSec is popular and politically untouchable in part because it is mostly universal. Once you start breaking up that sense of 'everybody', the politics of the whole thing suddenly changes.
>
> It's not so much that it couldn't be done at all, it's that it would need to
> impact an extremely limited set of individuals (0.1%? 1%) and/or be
> implemented over a long time period. Telling 20-somethings that Social
> Security will be means-tested when they retire is very different from doing it
> to 60-somethings.
> You don't have to go very far down the percentile ranks for wealth before
> Social Security becomes a significant, or the predominant, source of income.
>
> Robert

I had been planning on the wife (65 next month) and I (62) both
receiving social security. I now suspect that SS will be means tested
by 2030 so I am going to work longer if I can. And those means will be
way lower than people suspect. Maybe as low as $100,000 in assets.

Lynn

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:23:58 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/8/2023 12:37 PM, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> > Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>> On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>>> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >>>>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> ... surely
> >>>>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime, it is
> >>>>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back
> >>>>>> to an
> >>>>>> even keel!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,
> >>>>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by
> >>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so
> >>>>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,
> >>>>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself was
> >>>>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure they
> >>>>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
> >>>>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
> >>>>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social
> >>>> Security. It will cost you.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-president-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a
> >>>>
> >>>> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social Security,
> >>>> "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate various social
> >>>> safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic of refusing to
> >>>> raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is the _same_ thing
> >>>> the Republicans have done several times before and the only budget cuts
> >>>> they are ever willing to accept are to the so-called "Entitlement"
> >>>> programs, especially Social Security. Which aren't actually
> >>>> entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them separate from the
> >>>> general income tax.
> >>> Never gonna happen. But, Social Security might be means tested like
> >>> Australia did a decade or so ago. Bill Gates won't get a SS transfer
> >>> each month into his checking account. Of course, the SS check would be
> >>> a rounding error for him.
> >>>
> >>> Lynn
> >>
> >> The issue with means testing is that it sounds good, and it might even make economic sense, but political and culturally it's toxic. SocSec is popular and politically untouchable in part because it is mostly universal. Once you start breaking up that sense of 'everybody', the politics of the whole thing suddenly changes.
> >
> > It's not so much that it couldn't be done at all, it's that it would need to
> > impact an extremely limited set of individuals (0.1%? 1%) and/or be
> > implemented over a long time period. Telling 20-somethings that Social
> > Security will be means-tested when they retire is very different from doing it
> > to 60-somethings.
> > You don't have to go very far down the percentile ranks for wealth before
> > Social Security becomes a significant, or the predominant, source of income.
> >
> > Robert
> I had been planning on the wife (65 next month) and I (62) both
> receiving social security. I now suspect that SS will be means tested
> by 2030 so I am going to work longer if I can. And those means will be
> way lower than people suspect. Maybe as low as $100,000 in assets.

My wife is retired and gets SS. I'm still working, so not. But our retirement
planning includes a basic assumption that it needs to work even if SS goes
away entirely.

pt