DVD Talk
2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon [Archive] - Page 4 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

CRM114
12-08-11, 01:49 PM
Booga booga!

Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html)

orangecrush
12-08-11, 02:14 PM
Why?I was speaking for me. I'd rather have more money in my paycheck every two weeks than get a larger amount in one sum in March. In terms of economic stimulus I think aggregate increased spending is better year round than just once a year. If you think it will have a stimulative effect, you are more likely to see firms hire new staff if they see a 3% increase in sales year round than if they have a 10% increase in one month and no others. Note that I donít think it will have much of a stimulative effect either way though.

Th0r S1mpson
12-08-11, 02:31 PM
I think people are more likely to spend money in a stimulative fashion if they get a $500 check than if they get 24 checks for $20.84 spread out over 12 months. But I can't say for sure. I'm not sure where your 3% in increased sales is coming from. Sales of what? Clearly something that costs less than $20.

I thought the first stimulus where they cut big checks was a terrible idea, and spreading it out made it that much worse. It would be interesting to see which actually resulted in more spending on an individual basis.

Venusian
12-08-11, 02:32 PM
In FORTY years if we do nothing. Short term payroll tax cuts aren't going to do anything to effect it.

Some of us won't get SS benefits until 40 years from now so we care about its solvency in 40 years.

X
12-08-11, 02:37 PM
2036 isn't even 40 years from now. (It was estimated at 2037 last year, take a guess what it will be in another year.)

Th0r S1mpson
12-08-11, 02:40 PM
I don't trust any prediction 40 years out. Nobody knows how much money there will be, and nobody knows how much the standard of living will cost. It's going to cost a lot of money just to get cleared by the FAA if you want to drive a car by then, though I understand elderly people may receive mailers urging them not to drive, with an option to downgrade their death panel rating in exchange for discounted scratch tickets.

I'm sure not going to count on social security to get by.

CRM114
12-08-11, 03:07 PM
I think people are more likely to spend money in a stimulative fashion if they get a $500 check than if they get 24 checks for $20.84 spread out over 12 months. But I can't say for sure. I'm not sure where your 3% in increased sales is coming from. Sales of what? Clearly something that costs less than $20.

I thought the first stimulus where they cut big checks was a terrible idea, and spreading it out made it that much worse. It would be interesting to see which actually resulted in more spending on an individual basis.

The payroll tax cut is purely a political move as it forces Repubs into stating they support a tax hike on the working class. It's injection of $1000 per working person into the economy can't hurt but no one knows if it's really helping all that much.

What would help is for business owners to open their wallets and increase the pay of their workers for once.

CRM114
12-08-11, 03:07 PM
Some of us won't get SS benefits until 40 years from now so we care about its solvency in 40 years.

And minor tweaks will get you there. See 1983.

2036 isn't even 40 years from now. (It was estimated at 2037 last year, take a guess what it will be in another year.)

I know you aren't reading this but the report clearly states 2052.

Dr Mabuse
12-08-11, 03:22 PM
Social Security is doomed. There is a 0% chance of anyone getting a dime in 40 years. It will be in a critical state in 10 years.

Come on guys... surely you guys don't really believe that nonsense from the CBO, or the fable about the existence of some magical 'trust fund' and the like?

Venusian
12-08-11, 03:33 PM
And minor tweaks will get you there. See 1983.



I know you aren't reading this but the report clearly states 2052.

After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year.

classicman2
12-08-11, 03:37 PM
Social Security is doomed. There is a 0% chance of anyone getting a dime in 40 years. It will be in a critical state in 10 years.

Come on guys... surely you guys don't really believe that nonsense from the CBO, or the fable about the existence of some magical 'trust fund' and the like?

I heard that same gloom & doom about Social Security being doomed 40 years ago.

Dr Mabuse
12-08-11, 05:30 PM
I heard that same gloom & doom about Social Security being doomed 40 years ago.

Right. And anyone with even a tad of common sense would have known it was BS back then. A convenient hobgoblin to 'scare' the masses with and thus steer them like a herd of cattle. I feel sure it worked like a charm.

Today's situation has no resemblance to past issues. It's so different it isn't even comparable. So today the 'official' reports are used to steer the masses like cattle and have them believe there are 'trust funds' and '40 more years' and the like.

Scaring the ignorant masses was useful for the powerful back them. Lying to them and dissuading concern is the ticket today.

The situation is simple math today. Nothing elegant or complicated required.

It amazes me what people will believe, and what people will think when they are told to think it...

The lies about 'trust fund' and all continue to work even though last year SS paid out more than it took in from taxes. 'Official' reports put that date nice and safely off around 2040 IIRC. Then later the CBO revised it to 2025, then 2020, and finaly ~2017, then they admitted it actually happened last year in 2010. The 'trust fund' was already in the red by September of last year even in official reports, and that is complete horseshit even claiming there is a 'trust fund' at all.

Here's one example below of how fast the official lies, oh I'm sorry 'projections', have to change from year to year in the face of facts these days. What a change from 2009 to 2010! Luckily they whipped up some bullshit lies that it would all magically change back to a surplus in the near future(2014). Can't scare the cattle now can we?

Even with this nonsense in the official reports, look at 2020, now less than 10 years away. Even in a lie it's 80 billion in the hole by then, and that is so far fetched it has no relation to reality. It will be far worse by then, at a critical state.

http://i.imgur.com/yhuDw.jpg

But wait! There's more BS. Here are revised 2011 projections:

http://i.imgur.com/6SkCh.gif

Why... where'd that magical 'surplus' projected in 2014 and 2015 only last year go? How is 2020 now so much worse? It's only a year later...

:lol:

X
12-08-11, 05:48 PM
It's hard to imagine the death of SS when all you have to do to save it for the reasonable future is open the borders to young people.

BKenn01
12-08-11, 06:30 PM
Its all just one giant catch 22. The Democrats cant make the drastic cuts that should, have and must be done in govt spending and the Republicans cant raise taxes because both would piss off to many members of their base. This is futile.....

BKenn01
12-08-11, 06:51 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G4yDCUJJm_U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He has a lot of valid points!

kvrdave
12-08-11, 07:27 PM
Right. And anyone with even a tad of common sense would have known it was BS back then. A convenient hobgoblin to 'scare' the masses with and thus steer them like a herd of cattle. I feel sure it worked like a charm.

Today's situation has no resemblance to past issues. It's so different it isn't even comparable. So today the 'official' reports are used to steer the masses like cattle and have them believe there are 'trust funds' and '40 more years' and the like.

Scaring the ignorant masses was useful for the powerful back them. Lying to them and dissuading concern is the ticket today.

The situation is simple math today. Nothing elegant or complicated required.

It amazes me what people will believe, and what people will think when they are told to think it...

The lies about 'trust fund' and all continue to work even though last year SS paid out more than it took in from taxes. 'Official' reports put that date nice and safely off around 2040 IIRC. Then later the CBO revised it to 2025, then 2020, and finaly ~2017, then they admitted it actually happened last year in 2010. The 'trust fund' was already in the red by September of last year even in official reports, and that is complete horseshit even claiming there is a 'trust fund' at all.

Here's one example below of how fast the official lies, oh I'm sorry 'projections', have to change from year to year in the face of facts these days. What a change from 2009 to 2010! Luckily they whipped up some bullshit lies that it would all magically change back to a surplus in the near future(2014). Can't scare the cattle now can we?

Even with this nonsense in the official reports, look at 2020, now less than 10 years away. Even in a lie it's 80 billion in the hole by then, and that is so far fetched it has no relation to reality. It will be far worse by then, at a critical state.

http://i.imgur.com/yhuDw.jpg

But wait! There's more BS. Here are revised 2011 projections:

http://i.imgur.com/6SkCh.gif

Why... where'd that magical 'surplus' projected in 2014 and 2015 only last year go? How is 2020 now so much worse? It's only a year later...

:lol:

Lock box.

Superboy
12-08-11, 07:30 PM
Strategery.

wishbone
12-08-11, 09:31 PM
Lock box.<html><table border=0><tr><td><img src=http://i41.tinypic.com/536bft.jpg width=140></td><td>But let me add something in <i>my</i> plan.<br>The <i>lock box</i> would also be camoflauged.<br>Now, to all outward appearances, it would<br>be a leatherbound edition of <u>Count of Monte<br>Cristo</u>, by Alexandre Dumas. But it wouldn't be.<br>It would be the <i>lock box</i>.</td></tr></table></html>

CRM114
12-09-11, 08:19 AM
:lol:

Venusian
12-15-11, 02:28 PM
The first and largest of the three bills conforms to the $1.043 trillion August spending cap—down about $7 billion from 2011. But the second, providing $8.1 billion in new disaster aid for the Corps of Engineers and FEMA, follows on about $2 billion in additional emergency disaster aid already approved for highways and agriculture last month.

The net impact is that the combined spending will exceed 2011 levels, when there were fewer disaster costs. And this is sure to aggravate fiscal conservatives who have never been happy with the August accords.

To appease this fact, a third bill is included that would go back and cut all accounts, but for defense and veterans, by 1.83 percent, to offset the costs. But this is sleight-of-hand since no one expects the Democratic Senate will ever approve it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70471_Page3.html#ixzz1gdYvbwJl


assuming the bill passes and the govt isn't shut down....the whole august debacle was for nothing? No real cuts this year at all. what crap.

Dr Mabuse
12-15-11, 02:38 PM
No real cuts were ever even proposed or considered.

The whole thing was over slightly reducing the planned increases in spending in the future. Not one aspect of actual spending cuts, a reduction in federal spending, was ever up for consideration.

kvrdave
12-15-11, 05:53 PM
Well thank you Richard Nixon for giving us baseline budgeting. :lol:

Th0r S1mpson
12-15-11, 05:55 PM
Obama just saved us more than 50 trillion dollars over the next 100 years by ending the war in Iraq. No more cuts are necessary.

Venusian
02-15-12, 11:10 AM
So payroll tax cuts are set to go up at the end of the month. But Congress had a breakthrough and will extend! They'll pay for it but adding to the deficit :(

I guess we've learned nothing.

I wonder if the tea partiers will vote for it? I assume not but with the Democrats and the rest of the GOP backing it, there should be enough votes

kvrdave
02-15-12, 11:16 AM
That can't be true. Obama demanded we go back to PayGo years ago.