Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh man, Trump is gonna lose it on that one.  He wants tariffs AND lower rates and the FED is saying he can't have both (right now at least).

Well, Doddard says that JPow is a “dumb man”…who was appointed as Fed Chair by <checks notes> Trump - so what did he expect? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Well, Doddard says that JPow is a “dumb man”…who was appointed as Fed Chair by <checks notes> Trump - so what did he expect? 

It’s weird how so many (all?) of his appointments who were the best candidates at the time turn out to be dumb and crazy 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 6/24/2025 at 6:52 AM, Dbeasy said:

This is an interesting and scary outlook on the U.S. debt and it's impact on interest rates and inflation. And just to be clear, the current Republican administration, and the Democrat administration before it, implemented and are implementing disastrous fiscal policies to address the issue effectively. We as citizens have got to get off team Red and team Blue and force our politicians to get on team America. 

Raise taxes (LTCG, ordinary income, dividends, etc), eliminate the SS cap and stop looting programs for the wealthy.  Get defense spending in line, strategic but not bloated. Problem solved. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, troph said:

Raise taxes (LTCG, ordinary income, dividends, etc), eliminate the SS cap and stop looting programs for the wealthy.  Get defense spending in line, strategic but not bloated. Problem solved. 

Yup

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Core" PCE came in a 2.7% annual (2.6% expected).  April revised up from 2.5% to 2.6%.

The only way to deal with the debt problem, besides the actions Brisket listed is to inflate away the debt over 10-15 years. To do that requires inflation to run ~3+ percent annually over that period, just like after WW2. So Powell will get replaced, the new Fed will drop rates low, inflation will creep up to 3-3.5, everyone will complain, but the politicians will secretly be happy with it. Middle class and the poor will get hit the hardest and the wealthier will hardly notice because they control so much of the world’s wealth now they can buy anything they want 10x over. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The only way to deal with the debt problem, besides the actions Brisket listed is to inflate away the debt over 10-15 years. To do that requires inflation to run ~3+ percent annually over that period, just like after WW2. So Powell will get replaced, the new Fed will drop rates low, inflation will creep up to 3-3.5, everyone will complain, but the politicians will secretly be happy with it. Middle class and the poor will get hit the hardest and the wealthier will hardly notice because they control so much of the world’s wealth now they can buy anything they want 10x over. 

doesn't sound like a red team blue team issue.  i hear you, but the right answer is raise taxes significantly, cut defense spending.  

better get all your money into equities, it will be the only inflation protection available.  value of cash will erode while you watch.

Edited by troph
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

Raise taxes (LTCG, ordinary income, dividends, etc), eliminate the SS cap and stop looting programs for the wealthy.  Get defense spending in line, strategic but not bloated. Problem solved. 

Yes. 

Posted
1 hour ago, troph said:

doesn't sound like a red team blue team issue.  i hear you, but the right answer is raise taxes significantly, cut defense spending.  

better get all your money into equities, it will be the only inflation protection available.  value of cash will erode while you watch.

I’m not suggesting either/or.  You have to do both Brisket actions AND inflate away the debt, because the rising interest payments are swamping the budget. Interest payments are now higher than the defense budget. 

Posted
8 hours ago, troph said:

doesn't sound like a red team blue team issue.  i hear you, but the right answer is raise taxes significantly, cut defense spending.  

better get all your money into equities, it will be the only inflation protection available.  value of cash will erode while you watch.

I like how you say it’s not a red team blue team issue but your solution is raise taxes and cut defense spending. 😝 Please get serious. 

The solution is cut all spending. But that is too painful so it will never happen. Nothing stops this train. Protect yourself how you see fit. 

Posted
6 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m not suggesting either/or.  You have to do both Brisket actions AND inflate away the debt, because the rising interest payments are swamping the budget. Interest payments are now higher than the defense budget. 

I’m sorry what are “brisket actions” ? I scrolled back a couple pages and didn’t see him vomit on this thread. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

I like how you say it’s not a red team blue team issue but your solution is raise taxes and cut defense spending. 😝 Please get serious. 

The solution is cut all spending. But that is too painful so it will never happen. Nothing stops this train. Protect yourself how you see fit. 

Lol wake me up the first time defense spending is cut.  Fucking bullshit, like we always expect from your new names.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, burnt beanz said:

I like how you say it’s not a red team blue team issue but your solution is raise taxes and cut defense spending. 😝 Please get serious. 

The solution is cut all spending. But that is too painful so it will never happen. Nothing stops this train. Protect yourself how you see fit. 

Ok, let’s phase out SS benefits entirely for the wealthy. There … cut entitlements, cut defense smartly (war is changing we can spend less and more strategically and still remain the strongman), raise taxes on the wealthy, remove the SS cap, etc etc. 

all of the above.

any attempt to cut expenses as the way out of this simply won’t work. It especially won’t work if defense isn’t on the chopping block.

raise revenue, cut the largest two budget categories, and do so in a way that doesn’t leave the poorest who need entitlements the most hungry and destitute. 

math isn’t red or blue, it’s just facts.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

Social security and Medicare?

Entitlements and defense. Don’t be dense, there is NO way out of this without increasing revenue and cutting defense. None whatsoever.

Posted
11 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Lets cut all LGBTQIAQRSPUV spending first as a good faith measure so Kamala can heal

Congrats you saved something like .00000000000001% of the deficit. But the performative part is 💯 for those who can’t do math. 

Posted
1 hour ago, troph said:

Ok, let’s phase out SS benefits entirely for the wealthy. There … cut entitlements, cut defense smartly (war is changing we can spend less and more strategically and still remain the strongman), raise taxes on the wealthy, remove the SS cap, etc etc. 

This is all correct, and 0% politically viable. 

Unfortunately representative government is our achilles heel. A pent-umvirate of diverse Surly posters could literally steer this thing more true., while all probably trying to kill each other. Maybe time should be a flat circle. 

Posted
12 hours ago, troph said:

Ok, let’s phase out SS benefits entirely for the wealthy

I have no problem with means testing.

That also means that if that rich person loses everything - then they have access again to their Social Security retirement benefits.  

The program was supposed to keep people from starving and being homeless in their old age.  It was not meant as extra income for wealthy people to pay their country club dues and make stock investments.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

It was not meant as extra income for wealthy people to pay their country club dues and make stock investments.

It’s not really extra income. It’s them getting their money back that they paid in the system. if they don’t get it back then it was really just an extra tax they paid their whole working life. 
 

Also, it’s probably been dissected here before but how has it been proposed that means testing would occur? What would be measured? “Wealthy” to me implies a lot of money. 
 

2 hours ago, tbone_ said:

So because I’ve worked my ass off and made good decisions I have to forfeit what I’ve paid in? HTF is that fair?

It isn’t fair. It’s a total ripoff. But the preservation of the system that facilitated your success may depend partially on that involuntary sacrifice. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Love these platitudes in the context of people getting rug pulled on social security and medicare. It's this like how "not paying taxes makes me smart"?

I mean it is largely true that the tax system has been designed to incentivize business creation and it would be foolish to pay taxes that you can legally avoid.

Posted
19 hours ago, tbone_ said:

So because I’ve worked my ass off and made good decisions I have to forfeit what I’ve paid in? HTF is that fair?

Highly doubt the cuts I would propose would impact you. Eliminate the cap on SS tax would impact many though.  

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, burnt beanz said:

It’s not really extra income. It’s them getting their money back that they paid in the system. if they don’t get it back then it was really just an extra tax they paid their whole working life. 
 

Also, it’s probably been dissected here before but how has it been proposed that means testing would occur? What would be measured? “Wealthy” to me implies a lot of money. 
 

It isn’t fair. It’s a total ripoff. But the preservation of the system that facilitated your success may depend partially on that involuntary sacrifice. 

 

IMG_7170.png

IMG_7171.png
 

it was never primarily intended to provide retirement income to those who don’t need it. 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, tbone_ said:

So because I’ve worked my ass off and made good decisions I have to forfeit what I’ve paid in? HTF is that fair?

it is fair because it was meant to be insurance for old age upkeep.   That is why the most Elon Musk can get from Social Security is exactly the same as someone making 10,000 times less. It was not supposed to be a personal savings account that reflected exactly how well you did financially. (and yes, I know there is a cap on Social Security at about $175K and no cap on Medicare earnings so that Elon did not pay the same share of his earnings for Social Security)

It was a depression era program created to keep people from starving to death while being homeless.  If someone makes ten million a year and are bitching about not getting their Social Security, then they are a selfish asshole.

Obviously, the devil is in the details, and in this case it depends on what income level you start means testing. That is a legitimate point of discussion.

Edit: Troph beat me to it

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, troph said:

 

IMG_7170.png

IMG_7171.png
 

it was never primarily intended to provide retirement income to those who don’t need it. 

That’s great but that wasn’t how it was set up. It’s universal.
 

So how do you means test it? Seems like a lot of rich retired people over 65 could shield “income” and thus still qualify. Measuring net worth would require a new system of financial data collection. Many would oppose that based on privacy concerns which I would consider valid. 
 

59 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

it is fair because it was meant to be insurance for old age upkeep.

That is not how it was setup. People have lived their whole adult lives paying into a system with an expectation attached. Changing that after decades isn’t “fair”.  But hey I guess life isn’t fair.

Posted
1 minute ago, burnt beanz said:

So how do you means test it? Seems like a lot of rich retired people over 65 could shield “income” and thus still qualify. Measuring net worth would require a new system of financial data collection. Many would oppose that based on privacy concerns which I would consider

Back in the day they had these things called tax returns.  And 1099s. Rumor has it that the government would know all kinds of personal things about you, like how much you made in interest - and how much your employer paid you - and what your capital gains from sale of stocks and real estate were.  Those bastards also knew how much you had in retirement accounts when you hit 73 and older, and would check to make sure you took minimum distributions based on the amount of the account.  Some say you would pay a greater Medicare premium if you made more money and junk.

I think Big Brother can come up with some sort of way of knowing if you earned too much to get full benefits.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, troph said:

it was never primarily intended to provide retirement income to those who don’t need it. 

Strawman.  Your AI query literally says "Provide financial support to retired workers age 65 or older through a national retirement system".

It doesn't exclude those who don't "need" it.  This shit makes me furious.  Call it a tax and I'll pay it -- call it a benefit then I'd better fucking benefit when the time comes.

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Strawman.  Your AI query literally says "Provide financial support to retired workers age 65 or older through a national retirement system".

It doesn't exclude those who don't "need" it.  This shit makes me furious.  Call it a tax and I'll pay it -- call it a benefit then I'd better fucking benefit when the time comes.

You couldn’t be more wrong. It was not for Rockefeller and others like him and at that time there weren’t many with anything resembling a nest egg, it was the fucking Great Depression. Know your history.

And know that realistic plans I and many advocate to reduce SS benefits would maybe apply to 3-4 surly posters, unless more of you have a retirement income based on over 8-10m in invested assets. The fact that high wage earners and families with some modest wealth think the cuts needed now would go against them is what’s funny. The only way that happens (we all lose or have steep cuts to our benefits) is if we keep arguing against reasonable cuts for those that truly don’t need it (i.e. it’s a rounding error) and increase tax revenue. 

Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

You couldn’t be more wrong. It was not for Rockefeller and others like him and at that time there weren’t many with anything resembling a nest egg, it was the fucking Great Depression. Know your history.

The law does not carve out income or wealth.  Know your English.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The law does not carve out income or wealth.  Know your English.

Wealthy participants were included as a matter of political expediency not intent. The entire legislative history is crystal fucking clear the program was intended to provide workers, laborers something so they had some security as they aged out of the ability to work because at that time they had nothing. The wealthy’s participation is not about intent or primary purpose but was instead to ensure passage and that it would not be eliminated. There is some ambiguity with respect to age and middle/upper middle classes as increased longevity and the creation of a middle and upper middle class was not contemplated in 1935. So to reform to exclude the top 1% would not remotely invalidate the purpose of the law.

Edited by troph
Posted

The fact that you think eliminating the top 1% from benefits would accomplish anything tells me everything I need to know.  Learn your math, and while you're at it, stop demanding social justice while advocating financial shackles.

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

The fact that you think eliminating the top 1% from benefits would accomplish anything tells me everything I need to know.  Learn your math, and while you're at it, stop demanding social justice while advocating financial shackles.

Changing the topic now because you were wrong about the law. Okay, 3,500,000 are in the top 1%. Maybe we expand to top 1.5% or 2% but eliminating the cap on SS wage taxes, increasing the retirement age, would all make a serious dent. 90M people will be on SS by 2035. 900,000 off the rolls alone could save $30B, if benefits are lowered for top 1.01-3% you could double that. Raise the tax threshold alone would add $200B. Raising minimum to 70 would be another $10B.  
 

We need all of it. 

Posted

I didn't change the topic and I'm not wrong about the law.  Do you not get letters from SSA telling you your future benefits?  How is changing that kosher?

I have no problem with eliminating the cap, and it would hit me too.  Haven't thought through retirement age, but that seems to be a moving target.  Whatever.  I'll be eligible in a week and I'm so far from retiring I don't know what to think about that knob.

$30B is nothing.  1.5% of the debt.  Come on.  Cuts aren't going to stop at the top 1% either, not by a long shot.  They'll probably wipe the whole thing out.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...