The GOP's Budget Proposal ...
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Tilted
..
To the balanced budget question - no. 'Primary balance' and 'primary deficit' are terms politicians have taken to using to discount (or, at least, leave out for the purposes of a particular point) the reality that we have to pay interest on our existing debt. The amount of that interest is projected to grow considerably over the next decade (by a factor of 3 or 4) due primarily to an increase in our average borrowing costs, but also due to an increase in the amount of money we owe.
The term primary balance means the budget is balanced except for interest costs. Similarly, the primary deficit is the deficit not taking into account interest costs.
Pete
Repete
Dern tootin. Acne cream and porn subscriptions aint cheap!
JunkShip
Pastafarian
"The stimulus alone allocated $80 billion of taxpayers’ dollars specifically for politically favored renewable-energy interests.
The results are plain to see: Gas prices have more than doubled since the President took office."
Because the recent rise in gas prices has NOTHING to do with unease in the Middle East?
The results are plain to see: Gas prices have more than doubled since the President took office."
Because the recent rise in gas prices has NOTHING to do with unease in the Middle East?
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
The rise in gas prices can also be attributed to the current administration's absolute refusal to increase domestic production in favor of unicorn fart propelled autos.
(FYI- Obama has been in office longer than the last 3 months.)
Tilted
..
It really depends on what plan to 'privatize' you are talking about. That's a fairly generic term that doesn't necessarily have an exact meaning in this context. Generally speaking though, the tricky aspect of such plans or proposals would be the transition between the current system and the (partially) privatized system.
If you are referring to the budget resolution that is the topic of this thread, it doesn't really propose anything specific with regard to Social Security, other than a trigger mechanism that would require the President and Congress to come up with plans to address its lack of sustainability. As for Medicare, this resolution is a little short on details (as it is in general - perhaps there's a more detailed release to come). But, the basic idea seems to be that people who are more than ten years from retirement wouldn't get Medicare coverage as it exists now, they would instead get a Medicare payment that went toward whichever coverage plan they chose from among a number of available options. I get the sense that those plans would be from private entities, but would have to meet certain requirements. Those with lower incomes or greater health risks would get more assistance (e.g., I assume, paying for the plan and/or uncovered expenses).
People within 10 years of retirement or already retired would continue to receive Medicare coverage just as they would or do now. They would, however, be able to choose the Medicare payment option instead.
I think everyone would continue to pay into the system (i.e. pay FICA taxes) just as they do now. But, again, this resolution is a little short on details (and I haven't read all of it anyway), so I'm not sure about that.
Tilted
..
As I noted in the prior post, this proposal doesn't include a great amount of detail. I would note a couple of things about its proposed tax policies though.
It calls for reducing the number of tax brackets and reducing the top rate from 35% to 25%. It also calls for simplifying the tax code and, it would seem, eliminating (unspecified) deductions/credits/loopholes. As for corporate taxes, it likewise calls for eliminating or modifying deductions/credits/carve-outs and reducing the rate from 35% to 25%.
It calls for reducing the number of tax brackets and reducing the top rate from 35% to 25%. It also calls for simplifying the tax code and, it would seem, eliminating (unspecified) deductions/credits/loopholes. As for corporate taxes, it likewise calls for eliminating or modifying deductions/credits/carve-outs and reducing the rate from 35% to 25%.
JunkShip
Pastafarian
Doesn't change the fact that the statement is wrong. The document has makes many incorrect conclusions. I wouldn't be suprised to find in there that funding NPR is to blame for the increase in cervical cancer rates.
yeah..that.
How is it wrong? If we were not so dependent on petroleum imports, are you certain that the price instability we see now would be the same? Gas prices have remained quite stable in China..Brazil...Norway...
Tilted
..
Cervical cancer rates? No.
Global warming, the Japanese Tsunami, and widespread congestive heart failure? Yes. It points that fact out. In a bold-ed, double-sized, vibrant-red font.
JunkShip
Pastafarian
Here, a chart based on data from:
U.S. Retail Gasoline Historical Prices
for gas prices since 2002.
And to follow your logic: Obama has been in office for less then 9 years.
Please provide similar data for your China, Brazil, Norway statement from an official source?
Attachments
We've done a lousy job of exploiting our own petroleum resources for quite some time. Obama is hell-bent on making that situation worse and succeeding well...
Speaking of 'official sources'..what rank Xcel amateur put together that graph you posted?
I work in all those countries I mentioned..have for over two decades now. Buy gas for my rental cars there. How 'official' ya want?
Even with the very recent increases imposed, the cost of a liter of gasoline in Norway has little more than doubled....since 1987.
Last edited:
foodcritic
New Member
there already starving seniors here
RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi: GOP Budget Will Deprive Seniors Of Meals
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
There are at least two reasons why gas prices are stable in some nations.
Countries like Venezuela (and Norway) *produce* oil. In Venezuela gas prices are dirt cheap.
In most of Western Europe, gas is expensive because they TAX the ever living crap out of it. Seriously. In some of those countries, the tax is more than the gas. Because of that, they've suppressed demand and a rise in price of oil doesn't significantly change cost or demand.
JunkShip
Pastafarian
We've done a lousy job of exploiting our own petroleum resources for quite some time. Obama is hell-bent on making that situation worse and succeeding well...
Speaking of 'official sources'..what rank Xcel amateur put together that graph you posted?
I work in all those countries I mentioned..have for over two decades now. Buy gas for my rental cars there. How 'official' ya want?
Even with the very recent increases imposed, the cost of a liter of gasoline in Norway has little more than doubled....since 1987.
Ad hominem and 'personal experience'. Guess I've been defeated.