Why Ryan is right about Medicare.

Socrtease said:
People are living longer. Sure, at age 65 they are healthier now than they were in 1965, but as they get older, their health problems become bigger and more costly. we are going to get to the point were people live longer as non-productive seniors than they did as non-productive children.
Click to expand...
There's an easy fix for that too. Equatable distribution of wealth. In the last 40 years median household income when adjusted for inflation has dropped significantly but the productivity of American workers has exploded. Worker productivity in our nation has increased by nearly 100% in the last 30 years. That means the average american worker produces twice as much per capita as they did 30 years ago but have their wages doubled? Hell, no. In fact wages have stayed flat, when adjusted for inflation, since the 70's. Virtually all of that productivity has gone to the top 1% in income earnears and hardly none of it to the people who do the producing.

Now I don't know about you but if you're going to try and sell me that only 1% of the population is really productive and that only they are worthy of the profits of our combined labor you'll have to excuse me when I tell you you're fucking nuts!

How about we raise the top tax rate to 75% with a loophole that if the money is invested in job creating industries that will put that money into circulation than they can get a nice big tax break.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Yet your messiah decided to reduce the SS payroll tax by 2% for everyone. I wonder what that will do to the solvency of SS. I wonder what will happen when someone decides it is time to put it back in place? I can already hear the left screaming 'they want to raise taxes on the poor and middle classes!!!'
Click to expand...
I have to agree that I think it the SS payroll tax holiday was a poor idea. It's far to little money to jump start the economy and it just puts the day closer in which SS shortfall needs to be addressed but that' doesn't change my point at all that compared to medicare and defense spending SS is an easy fix.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There's an easy fix for that too. Equatable distribution of wealth. In the last 40 years median household income when adjusted for inflation has dropped significantly but the productivity of American workers has exploded. Worker productivity in our nation has increased by nearly 100% in the last 30 years. That means the average american worker produces twice as much per capita as they did 30 years ago but have their wages doubled? Hell, no. In fact wages have stayed flat, when adjusted for inflation, since the 70's. Virtually all of that productivity has gone to the top 1% in income earnears and hardly none of it to the people who do the producing.

Now I don't know about you but if you're going to try and sell me that only 1% of the population is really productive and that only they are worthy of the profits of our combined labor you'll have to excuse me when I tell you you're fucking nuts!
Click to expand...

1) Link us up to your data on median income over the past 40 years

2) Productivity gains have come largely due to increases in technology, not because workers suddenly became more productive.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Cause it's currently being paid for by investment income from the SS surplus. Still, I would agree, that's revenue not going into the system and even if it's only for two years, it doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Those are some strange mathematics skills you possess. That investment income would be greater had the cut not happened, not to mention the additional revenue. Compared to the solvency without the cuts, the current situation makes it less solvent in the long run.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

According to this site... median inflation adjusted income is up about 25% since 1967. It has certainly pulled back during this economic downturn (obviously because of higher unemployment) just as it has in previous downturns. This site says it gets its data from the US Census Bureau.
Click to expand...
The same US Census data shows that if the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970 it would be around $92,000 and not $50,000.
 
Jarod said:
While I applaud the guy for discussing a difficult issue, and bringing up a politically deadly issue. We owe it to our elders to honor the commitment we made to them. Even if it means raising taxes, they should get what they paid for.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you said except for the part about raising taxes. Obamacare must be repealed, and a Romney / Ryan presidency will be the best chance our seniors will have.

Some great information on Medicare can be found below:

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969
 
Superfreak said:
Those are some strange mathematics skills you possess. That investment income would be greater had the cut not happened, not to mention the additional revenue. Compared to the solvency without the cuts, the current situation makes it less solvent in the long run.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it was a permanent cut but it was for only two years and so it's long term impact will be marginal. Still, as I said, in the long run it doesn't help. Doesn't hurt that much either.
 
Jarod said:
While I applaud the guy for discussing a difficult issue, and bringing up a politically deadly issue. We owe it to our elders to honor the commitment we made to them. Even if it means raising taxes, they should get what they paid for.
Click to expand...

perhaps you weren't aware of the fact that Ryan's proposal changes nothing for anyone over age 55 and changes nothing for anyone who wants to continue with the current program.....or perhaps you were aware of it and merely wanted to lie about it.....which was it by the way?.....unaware or lying?.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The same US Census data shows that if the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970 it would be around $92,000 and not $50,000.
Click to expand...

dear mutt... you stated that the median income when adjusted for inflation had "dropped significantly" in the past 40 years. That is the data I would like to see... because nothing I have found shows anything like that.

But now you can also link us up to the Census data for the claim you made above as well... I will await the two links.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Cause it's currently being paid for by investment income from the SS surplus. Still, I would agree, that's revenue not going into the system and even if it's only for two years, it doesn't help.
Click to expand...

?????....wouldn't we have had the investment income from the SS surplus (if the surplus was actually being invested) even if the premiums WERE collected?.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes, if it was a permanent cut but it was for only two years and so it's long term impact will be marginal. Still, as I said, in the long run it doesn't help. Doesn't hurt that much either.
Click to expand...

dear Mutt... work on your math skills... the solvency issue is did it impact it positive, negative or was it neutral? When you take away revenue, it has a negative affect.

Also... how do they put it back in place without the left screaming that the Reps 'want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class'????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top