Gary, it is pretty clear that both parties are pandering. Romney's approach is actually worse, cutting revenues while knowing that his (unannounced) cuts in programs would be too small to offset his revenue cuts (let alone move toward a balanced budget) and have no chance to get enacted.

Interestingly enough, the best fiscal scenario out there is doing nothing and letting the full set of Bush taxcuts go away along with sequestration. It isn't enough (not enough cuts for sure, plus a need for somewhat more revenue), but it is far better fiscally than what either party is proposing (and neither party can pass). At least the 'do nothing and let what is in the pipeline happen' would yield something like 20% revenues and 23% expenditures (perhaps less if the economy does pick up a bit). A 3% shortfall, versus the proposed (but can't happen) Obama 4% shortfall or implied Romney 6%+ shortfall is better, but not good enough.

Regarding inflation in the future -- thinking about it makes me glad I've nothing tied up in annuities...

You think people who get SSI or SSDI give to campaigns? You'd have to show Me proof of this...

Vic when I was in college I gave $125 to a Presidential campaign when I was on SSDI. There's your proof

---

You think people who get SSI or SSDI give to campaigns? You'd have to show Me proof of this...

Vic when I was in college I gave $125 to a Presidential campaign when I was on SSDI. There's your proof

People who get SSDI often get more than people who get SSI, by several hundred dollars, the FBR is $698 a month for those that live on their own(I don't get SSDI as I'd missed an appointment cause of Concentration Problems, SSA said too bad, SSDI canceled), not like near $1100 a month, which when I'd applied for SSDI was about what I could have gotten with SSI, My Brother who had terminal Lung Cancer & Emphysema got about $1092 a month from SSDI alone, He didn't get SSI as He also had a pension from the US Navy for just over 20 years of service with Gold Stripes and Hash Marks for Good Conduct, which He never wore. So I find It a little hard to give money to campaigns, but then what I get isn't even enough to finance a replacement used car and the full coverage insurance, plus I'm not allowed to save more than $2000(it's been like that since 1989)( I could save $100 a month or get what I need or want and barely, Yet RICH Heartless Corp Repugnican shills who have NO Shame in Congress would love to cut My check in two, just to make people who have nothing else, homeless) or buy a Burial plot that costs more than $1500 and last I asked Burial plots cost at least $2900 and I still haven't buried My Mothers ashes...

Today I just got done repairing the pockets of 2 pairs of My 3 pairs of Blue Jeans, which are nearly 2 or 3 years old with a needle and brown thread.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

But you said:

You think people who get SSI or SSDI give to campaigns? You'd have to show Me proof of this...

I did and I provided proof...can you acknowledge that point please. Thank you

---

But you said:

You think people who get SSI or SSDI give to campaigns? You'd have to show Me proof of this...

I did and I provided proof...can you acknowledge that point please. Thank you

I'll meet ya halfway and no further, People who get SSDI can donate, if they so choose.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The curious thing is that Gary, who's noted some libertarian tendencies in this thread would be so gung ho to restrict the franchise.

But you said:

You think people who get SSI or SSDI give to campaigns? You'd have to show Me proof of this...

I did and I provided proof...can you acknowledge that point please. Thank you

I'll meet ya halfway and no further, People who get SSDI can donate, if they so choose.

The curious thing is that Gary, who's noted some libertarian tendencies in this thread would be so gung ho to restrict the franchise.

All the cash they want to fork over to The Give us More Chickens for our Pots Super Pac.

---

Ok, back to the thread subject, as it were. The bankruptcy of the US.

Read this thread and you will see why it almost certainly will happen.

You have people like VW Bobier who want SSI maintained/expanded.
You have people like BarryAZ who want Medicare maintained/expanded.
The list goes on and on. Everyone has their own particular special interest they are unwilling to see cut.

The Federal 'mandatory' spending (entitlements and interest on the debt) is about 65% of the budget. That just leaves about 35% of the Federal budget available for cuts (unless something is done about entitlements). If we eliminated the entire government except for the mandatory spending, it wouldn't balance the budget (almost would, but not quite). Something must be done about entitlement spending. Actual cuts, not just slowing the rate of increase. In the past, I have proposed a spending cut across the board. Cut everything by a fixed percent (50% to 60%). That seems the only way to proceed. Everyone's special interest(s) would be cut by an equal amount. Shared sacrifice.

Special interests also exist on the revenue side. Eliminate those as well. You can't put 'revenue enhancements' solely on the back of the primary engine of economic growth in this nation (the rich). When millionaire's taxes have been passed in the various states, the millionaires moved elsewhere. Let us get rid of the special interest riddled tax code in this nation and replace it with a flat tax with no deductions, shelters, exemptions, credits, or anything. Fair to everyone. Then we can set the tax rate to something agreeable so that we will have enough revenue to pay off our debts and have enough to pay for what we, as a nation, believe to be important. Again, shared sacrifice.

Yes, everyone will hurt. But, we must get rid of the special interests on both the spending and the revenue side if we are going to have a chance to avoid bankruptcy. We are going to have to cuts in all spending and raise tax revenue from everyone. Yes, it will hurt in the short term, but long term we will be better off.

Does this have a hope of being implemented? Nope, not a snowball's chance in hell. The bankruptcy is inevitable due to special interest politics. So, I am almost of the opinion to quit trying, relax, and enjoy things (free money while it lasts). Lets all of us just quit working and go on the dole. Go John Galt, as it were. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we get repo'ed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Right, I'm sure that is a stupendous amount especially relative to the other real superpacs. Then again, you are against all Superpacs -- get rid of those first and then we can talk.

The curious thing is that Gary, who's noted some libertarian tendencies in this thread would be so gung ho to restrict the franchise.

All the cash they want to fork over to The Give us More Chickens for our Pots Super Pac.

Major, either you haven't read the full thread, or you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading or misconstruing my posts on the subject of Medicare/Medicaid.

Fair enough, it is certainly the right (especially of extreme libertarians) to not read, misread or misconstrue what they do read. In fact, it makes being an extreme libertarian quite a bit simpler to sustain.

I'll not repeat or even provide a synopsis of the back and forth I've had with the 'good Gary' (as distinct from the 'bad Gary') on the subject, rather, I'll leave that exercise to you.

I do note (just to make it simpler for you) that I said that *some* folks advocated extending Medicare into a fuller single payer system. I did not say that I advocated that.

Oh heck, let me make it less arduous for you, I have written that there are many significant issues with medicare regarding costs that need fixing, including the compensation based on procedure codes (which tends to overcompensate many specialists while 'starving' internists and other generalists). I've noted that end of life care is excessively expensive and thus that heroic interventions to extend life need to be restricted. I've noted that means testing coverage fees needs to be addressed (Part A should be means tested and not free for all, Part B should be means tested and not subsidized for all).

Hope that helps you in your understanding of what I actually was advocating.

Have a nice day.

Right, I'm sure that is a stupendous amount especially relative to the other real superpacs. Then again, you are against all Superpacs -- get rid of those first and then we can talk.

The curious thing is that Gary, who's noted some libertarian tendencies in this thread would be so gung ho to restrict the franchise.

All the cash they want to fork over to The Give us More Chickens for our Pots Super Pac.

I have a schism on Pacs. SCOTUS is right that anyone should be able to say anything they like. SCOTUS is wrong in saying that corporations have anything at all to say about an election. Ergo, Pacs should be unincorporated associations, partnerships and the like with joint and severable liability for what they preach, so when they go slander they pay the piper for their slander.

But this is off the topic of the upcoming bankruptcy of the USA.

---

Well, wasn't it you that made it sort of on topic?

But what if ALL the money in SuperPacs was suddenly scooped up the government. A drop in the deficit bucket, but everything helps.

But this is off the topic of the upcoming bankruptcy of the USA.

Well, wasn't it you that made it sort of on topic?

My bad, been poked with a stick, and a reminder to self to try not and react as the poker wishes.

---

As to the Medicare entitlement. All the things you point out are important. I don't see it possible to get these though and still continue to call it Medicare. That is why I think that having an end date for Medicare and after that date Obama care continues past 65. Obama care addresses the issues you point out. Perhaps not exactly in the way you want. However it may be a politically acceptable way to get the health care monkey off the back of the taxpayer.

---

Gary, alternatively you could rename Obamacare to Medicare... <g> Let the Teapublicans rail against that.

Gary, the real problem I have with this though is a difference we have -- you have greater trust in the for profit private insurance industry than I do. I have greater trust in a single payer system than you do.

Perhaps your view is that a well regulated private insurance industry, being necessary to the well being of a free State, shall be empowered to provide medical insurance to the people of the United States.

"Special interests also exist on the revenue side. Eliminate those as well. You can't put 'revenue enhancements' solely on the back of the primary engine of economic growth in this nation (the rich). When millionaire's taxes have been passed in the various states, the millionaires moved elsewhere. Let us get rid of the special interest riddled tax code in this nation and replace it with a flat tax with no deductions, shelters, exemptions, credits, or anything. Fair to everyone. Then we can set the tax rate to something agreeable so that we will have enough revenue to pay off our debts and have enough to pay for what we, as a nation, believe to be important. Again, shared sacrifice."

Yes, everyone will hurt. But, we must get rid of the special interests on both the spending and the revenue side if we are going to have a chance to avoid bankruptcy. We are going to have to cuts in all spending and raise tax revenue from everyone. Yes, it will hurt in the short term, but long term we will be better off.
]

Major, you want to take someone who is working and barely making it, not paying income tax and tax them so they will no longer to be able to survive?
Those who are living on the margin by definition will be over the margin. I guess you do not mind seeing your countrymen living under bridges but I am bothered by it.[/quote]

---

Gary, the real problem I have with this though is a difference we have -- you have greater trust in the for profit private insurance industry than I do. I have greater trust in a single payer system than you do.

Obama care will be the standard care in the USA. Why should there be two different systems based on the age of the insured?

Or are you saying you think Obama care is a bad idea?

---

quoting fixed, I think

Special interests also exist on the revenue side. Eliminate those as well. You can't put 'revenue enhancements' solely on the back of the primary engine of economic growth in this nation (the rich). When millionaire's taxes have been passed in the various states, the millionaires moved elsewhere. Let us get rid of the special interest riddled tax code in this nation and replace it with a flat tax with no deductions, shelters, exemptions, credits, or anything. Fair to everyone. Then we can set the tax rate to something agreeable so that we will have enough revenue to pay off our debts and have enough to pay for what we, as a nation, believe to be important. Again, shared sacrifice."

Yes, everyone will hurt. But, we must get rid of the special interests on both the spending and the revenue side if we are going to have a chance to avoid bankruptcy. We are going to have to cuts in all spending and raise tax revenue from everyone. Yes, it will hurt in the short term, but long term we will be better off.

Major, you want to take someone who is working and barely making it, not paying income tax and tax them so they will no longer to be able to survive?
Those who are living on the margin by definition will be over the margin. I guess you do not mind seeing your countrymen living under bridges but I am bothered by it.

Major could think that they will just work harder to cover the tax or go without a 60 inch HD-TV and everything will be perfect. Or think that they will grow food on land they don't have. Maybe Major even thinks they aren't fit to survive and should die from starvation. He may trot out how back in the good old days everyone tithed to the Church when it was the Government and everyone made out okay. Perhaps his flat tax won't be flat.

I await his answer.

---