Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Well Obama went on the record as saying he would close Guantanamo Prison, yet here we are 4 years later and it is still open (I personally do think is the right decision in the short run).

Paul has also said that he would use special forces to go after Terrorists, So yes Paul probably would not use drones at first, but who knows what would happen if a special forces mission went wrong.

I assume Paul would have sent the Navy seal 6 team after Osama just like Obama did.

I do give the doctor the benefit of the doubt that he would not use drones and would pull forces back from overseas, not as much as he would like, but more than all other candidates.

 

Great, so a program that is already going belly up in 2015 is really going belly up in 2013.

 

I love the TP Mythology... Not only you have demigods (Reagan), you also have epic poems and bards....

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/05/04/social-security-is-not-going-broke/

 

"Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?

Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... ha, ha! Thanks for the laugh.

Here's something you might want to take a look at... the SSA's 2012 Trustee's report:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
​

You really should read the whole thing.

 

I will concede that probably the outlook is not as rossy as the article I posted stated, but by no means are funds running out in 2015 as you said before (2033 if things remain untouched). IMHO a few adjustments are needed: 1. Remove the income limit subjected to the SS and Medicare taxes, which now tops at $110K (Hey Mittens, pay up ) and 2. gradually increase retirement age to around 70 (yes, I'm killing myself here).

But since this is the Obama "Failures" thread, I'd love to direct your attention to this part of the report:

 

Somehow, I don't think he has W-2 earnings or any other FICA taxable earnings.

 

Which is why investment income should be FICA eligible and the capital gains tax rate should be equal to the rate one would pay if they had actually done something to earn that money.

 

I was speaking strickly of the Disability Insurance portion of Social Security going belly up in 2015 when it is projected the incoming revenue will only cover about 80% of the SSDI benefits.

By the way, what you and David Cay Johnston call a $2.7 trillion SS surplus is really $21 trillion unfunded liability. Any surplus has already been spent.

 

Here is why I dislike the Democrats almost as much as I dislike the Republicans, you want to mean test Social Security so rich old people do not get any of the benefits when they get old (because they are wealthy enough to not needed) but yet you want to force them to pay into a system that you will deny them the benefit, what the f is up with that.

I say if you remove the cap on the max contribution then all old people can get S.S. when they get old, no mean testing (I am sure rich people do not agree, they prefer the cap). Or keep the max SS contribution (preferred by the rich I am sure).

Not sure about social security, but I do agree that the tax rate for capital gains should be the same as regular income ( I guess that if your only income is capital gains then yes they should pay Social Security like everyone else).

 

Just to make clear.. I did not post anything about means testing, and I do agree with you, remove taxable income limits (including capital gains) pay everyone, up to a maximum, which currently is around $2.5K per month.

 

But that is a limit, you are putting a limit on what they can get out but not on how much they have to put in, to me that seems unjust.

Why would a person have to contribute 12.6% of their income if their income is millions of USD when they will only get very little back in return, that is a very shitty investment. I say, the amount you can take out from Social Security should be based on relation on how much you put in.

There should be a minimum requirement to put in to get the minimum amount, so maybe that is hypocritical of me, to want a minimum for a minimum, but no maximum for a maximum.

 

You could say that about any tax, couldn't you?

 

I get taxed for road use and maintenance but only drive about 4 miles to and from work. I get taxed for schools eventhough my son is in daycare and only starting September he will get a benefit from a State Pre-K program. I get taxed for Fire and police departments, never had a fire or a burglar breaking in (although fire-rescue and police were quick to respond when my wife had a car accident)... What you pay on taxes most of the time is not equivalent as what you get from.

In Social Security case we have a program that is individually quantifiable in inputs and outputs but the main purpose of the program is not to be an investment vehicle, but to allow even our most humble senior citizens to live with some dignity during their twightlight years and not to be a burden on the rest of the population (or an eyesore on the streets from Repugs' point of view). If $1000 is what you need to live month to month in the trailer park, or if $2500 is a paltry compared with what you could have obtained trading penny stocks is not in the essence of the program.

 

It is not a pension plan. It is social insurance. It is not designed to protect the individual, it is designed to protect the nation.

Your millionaire is paying in to protect the nation from streets full of starving people turning to crime to stay alive. He gets a payout to ensure that if his bank fails and his pension fund goes belly up and his broker is a crook, he still will be able to buy ramen.

 

Because it increases the efficiency of the their employees by not having to support indigent parents on their salary.

 

If it were truly "social insurance" it wouldn't consume 12.6% of a workers income. In fact the SS FICA tax would be nowhere near 12.4%. The fact the bulk of the money you pay in goes to a mandatory retirement plan.

 

Yes, there is a lot of shit we all pay for that we do not use, but nobody tells us not to use it or gives us a CAP on what we can use.

Nobody is telling us that you can only call the police 3 times a week because you are wealthy enough to pay for your own security firm, or that you are not allowed to drive on roads because you can afford to fly to your destination.

Hey I am all down with extortin taxes, I agree with them, I just want to make them more direct and less Robin Hood.

Oh I agree, but Social Security is supposed to be a Pension fund correct, so the contributors should get the benefits. (Actually SS may be an Insurance program).

Hey my Parents are on SS (well my mom not yet) so I want the fund to at least last as long as they live, I do not care (right now, maybe I would when/if my 401K tanks) if the fund is gone by the time I get old, I go about with the idea it will be gone by the time I get to be old, I do not mind paying my 6.3% (with my company paying the other half) because in my mind that helps my parents.

I am just against the type of populism to get other people to pay for the shit we want, it is not that I like rich mother ********ers or that I think I will be rich someday, it is just that is bad policy to come up with a bunch of programs and then pass the bill to someone else.

To me that is the equivalent of Rich people that want to go to war all the time because only we poor dumb people are the ones that enlist in the military, sure the elites do not care about going to war because their children are safe in an Ivy League college.

 

Do you walk to school or take your lunch?

 

"Why would a person have to contribute 12.6% of their income if their income is millions of USD when they will only get very little back in return, that is a very ********ty investment."

------

Because the community gates can be locked from either side.

 

I think that the analogy is actually the other way around: If burglars break into your house, the response should be the same, regardless if you leave in the Hamptons or in a shack under the overpass. You might get a little more attention if you live in the Hamptons but you do not (or should not) command the whole police for into your case....

There are roads in gated communities that you do not get to drive into, although they might have been built with your taxes (even if the maintenance is responsibility of the community).

The problem with the current tax allocation is that is by no way Robin Hood.. It is straight out of Nothingham's Sherif tax code. Back in the 1950s the highest tax bracket was 90% and rich people was still rich. Now-a-days the top bracket is 35%, investment is taxed at 15% and R-Money paid 13% last year.

Is a contingency pension fund. You do get the benefits, but as some other poster said, no one is preventing you from funding your 401k or your IRAs or trust funds if you have the money; if you are not a high income earner (or if your 401k dissapears in Jimmy Dimon roulette) it is a guarantee that at least you will have some income when you retire.

So you're OK paying for Iraq and Afghanistan? That is basically bad policy, tax breaks for oil companies and defense contractors, while the rest of us foot the bill... Saying that you want to balance the budget going back to 2001 taxation levels and that you want to pay for a health insurance program for 98% of Americans by taxing a few of the beneficieries a little more are not equivalent policies.

No is not. Life is not the same as a few bucks. Even if your life is worht nothing to the warmongers.

 

Funny thing is top wage earners pay a larger share of income taxes than they did in 1950s.