Balanced Budget

[Guest]

The only way a conservative can win the White House is with a balanced budget amendment. This would force both parties to come out of the closet and look tax payers in the eye and tell them we are raising your taxes for this program. We are very much like Greece at but a much larger scale. More people getting benefits from government than paying for those benefits. Minorities are fast becoming the majority and whether it sounds racist or not they will be voting for the party that promises the most unearned benefits. Democrats don't care where money comes from and although Republicans don't either they at least have to pretend they do and that alone will sink them. I received my AARP magazine this week and the story about social security still proclaims the system is solid until 2033 with the trust fund. THERE ARE NO FUNDS IN THE TRUST FUND. Chris Christey is the only candidate so far to even dare mention that. A balanced budget amendment would force that discussion. Those ready to go back into Iraq and jump into Syria would have to raise taxes to pay for it. As long as we continue whistle going by the graveyard nothing will change until it is too late. Instead of putting US flags on our lawns or "I support the troops" stickers on our cars should we not be paying for all this spending rather than leaving the bill to the next generation. Some say deficiets don't matter. They will sooner rather than later. Shouldn't we be screaming for a balanced budget amendment to protect our children and grand-children?

[Guest]

The only way a conservative can win the White House is with a balanced budget amendment. This would force both parties to come out of the closet and look tax payers in the eye and tell them we are raising your taxes for this program. We are very much like Greece at but a much larger scale. More people getting benefits from government than paying for those benefits. Minorities are fast becoming the majority and whether it sounds racist or not they will be voting for the party that promises the most unearned benefits. Democrats don't care where money comes from and although Republicans don't either they at least have to pretend they do and that alone will sink them. I received my AARP magazine this week and the story about social security still proclaims the system is solid until 2033 with the trust fund. THERE ARE NO FUNDS IN THE TRUST FUND. Chris Christey is the only candidate so far to even dare mention that. A balanced budget amendment would force that discussion. Those ready to go back into Iraq and jump into Syria would have to raise taxes to pay for it. As long as we continue whistle going by the graveyard nothing will change until it is too late. Instead of putting US flags on our lawns or "I support the troops" stickers on our cars should we not be paying for all this spending rather than leaving the bill to the next generation. Some say deficiets don't matter. They will sooner rather than later. Shouldn't we be screaming for a balanced budget amendment to protect our children and grand-children?

You mention a lot of things that are "Trumpesque" meaning, if you even consider telling the truth about them, you are doomed. You and Yours will pay the price as the activists jump into battle gear !!!

[Guest]

You mention a lot of things that are "Trumpesque" meaning, if you even consider telling the truth about them, you are doomed. You and Yours will pay the price as the activists jump into battle gear !!!

So he or she who hides the weenie best gets the election?

[Guest]

You mention a lot of things that are "Trumpesque" meaning, if you even consider telling the truth about them, you are doomed. You and Yours will pay the price as the activists jump into battle gear !!!

Not "you" but yes "yours" will pay the price.

[Guest]

I can hardly wait until whatever Regressive candidate gets the nod and says he or she sees no other way except to have means testing for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh yeah, let's put caps on both!

In the matter of income tax, which candidate is paying Federal income at a rate equal to or lower than yours?

Hillary, Carly, Trump, Bush, and most likely all of them.

[Guest]

I can hardly wait until whatever Regressive candidate gets the nod and says he or she sees no other way except to have means testing for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh yeah, let's put caps on both!

In the matter of income tax, which candidate is paying Federal income at a rate equal to or lower than yours?

Hillary, Carly, Trump, Bush, and most likely all of them.

Interesting....constitution makes the defense of our country one of, if not the largest responsibility of our government, yet that is what the President is cutting.

If I were you, I would fact check your posts...and try real hard to understand tax law..will save you saying embarrassing things.

[Guest]

Interesting....constitution makes the defense of our country one of, if not the largest responsibility of our government, yet that is what the President is cutting.

If I were you, I would fact check your posts...and try real hard to understand tax law..will save you saying embarrassing things.

Not one word about Social Security means testing or Medicare means testing and caps for both? Hmmm, interesting.

Cut the military budget and get those soldiers back home. Let the Iraquis fight their own battles.

[Guest]

I can hardly wait until whatever Regressive candidate gets the nod and says he or she sees no other way except to have means testing for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh yeah, let's put caps on both!

In the matter of income tax, which candidate is paying Federal income at a rate equal to or lower than yours?

Hillary, Carly, Trump, Bush, and most likely all of them.

Don't know much about categories and tax rates do you.
A couple of hints;
Most high wealth people do not earn much in wages or "regular income"......some none.

And are you really trying to compare the "yield" of a lower (whatever that means) rates across million/billions VS us residents "higher" rates across a few thousands.............really.

Remind us again what your point was (supposed to be)!

[Guest]

Not the income tax rate issue again. Please, people, get over this. If someone is paying a lower income tax rate than you it is probably because they derive their income from capital gains. That usually means they have money invested and that money is at risk. They should pay a lower tax rate on capital gains to compensate them for risking the money.

I can hardly wait until whatever Regressive candidate gets the nod and says he or she sees no other way except to have means testing for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh yeah, let's put caps on both!

In the matter of income tax, which candidate is paying Federal income at a rate equal to or lower than yours?

Hillary, Carly, Trump, Bush, and most likely all of them.

[Guest]

Social Security has a cap, both in terms of the amount of tax you can pay per year and the maximum benefit you can draw per month. Social Security means testing? Not likely.

Not one word about Social Security means testing or Medicare means testing and caps for both? Hmmm, interesting.

Cut the military budget and get those soldiers back home. Let the Iraquis fight their own battles.

[Guest]

Not one word about Social Security means testing or Medicare means testing and caps for both? Hmmm, interesting.

Cut the military budget and get those soldiers back home. Let the Iraquis fight their own battles.

You keep bringing up this same subject, and make it sound as if it is so clear cut, and I assume your comments also refer to federal retired employees.

But, I offer to you as others have done here that is not as simple as you might want it to be.

"The notion that Social Securit is not means tested flows from a fairly simple view of the program’s cash benefits. Retirees who earned comparatively higher wages receive higher benefits than those who earned lower wages, the reasoning would go, therefore the program cannot possibly be means tested. Furthermore, the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax that funds the program is capped – and therefore the tax is regressive, and so the overall program must be pro-rich and anti-poor.

But as some understand, that simple reasoning misses two key aspects of the program’s operations. First, the program’s benefit formula favors lower-wage workers. Benefit amounts are based on the lifetime earnings history. The first dollars of a worker’s wages are replaced at a 90 percent rate. Earnings in a second bracket (mechanically like an income-tax-rate bracket) are replaced at a 32 percent rate. And any earnings above that level are replaced at only a 15 percent rate. Thus, although higher-wage workers receive more dollars in absolute terms, they receive less back in Social Security benefits per dollar of tax paid over their lifetimes. At the extremes, the difference in the implicit rate of return on those contributions is enormous.

The second key program feature is that a fraction of Social Security benefits can be subject to income taxation, on a progressive basis – and then the income tax that applies to those included benefits itself is progressive. Once a beneficiary’s total income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 for a married couple), the first dollar of benefits begins to be taxable, up to inclusion of one-half of benefits. And once income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for a married couple) the portion of benefits included in taxable income begins to rise further, up to a maximum inclusion of 85 percent of benefits. This provision is designed to have no effect on the low-income elderly, while gradually increasing its impact as total incomes rise.

https://www.ced.org/blog/entry/why-arent-social-security-and-medicare-means-tested

[Guest]

My intent with this thread was to see if there was any support out there for taking or grandchildren's credit cards of the table by cutting spending and raising taxes how ever much it takes to balance our budget. The forum did what I expected, avoided the tough decision by throwing popular arguments around about means testing SS, defense spending not being high enough, etc. Sorry kids I tried.

[Guest]

My intent with this thread was to see if there was any support out there for taking or grandchildren's credit cards of the table by cutting spending and raising taxes how ever much it takes to balance our budget. The forum did what I expected, avoided the tough decision by throwing popular arguments around about means testing SS, defense spending not being high enough, etc. Sorry kids I tried.

I will apologize to you for sure on this. I am one who got sidetracked on the ongoing and always there question on Social Security.

There have been discussions on a lot of budget items and I see the point you are trying to make. It seems the military cuts are the dividing lines this year