Moderator: Moderators
Ok, I didn't ask the right question. What is the benefit of having millions and millions of poor and unskilled illegal immigrants in the country while at the same time increasing our spending on entitlement programs? How does allowing additional millions to enter improve American fiscal prospects given that we are going broke on entitlement spending as it is?Crissa wrote:some stuff
Yeah this is a huge issue. I would like to see an electronic means of citizenship validation (maybe birth cert, SSN, green card, passport and other docs crossreferenced and weighted for veracity) so companies would have no excuse but to hire only citizens and if they did not, they had no plausible denyability as they do now. The current system allows the laws to be bent or broken too easily.Juton wrote:Exactly Crissa,
If the states on the Mexican border wanted to cut down on illegal immigration they'd go after people hiring them. People come to the states to earn a decent living, if you make the only avenue for them to do that be through legal documented immigration then the illegal type would be much less common. Anything else is just a majority afraid of 'the other'.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:2) Entitlement spending is breaking our backs? Since when? Why don't you name these entitlement programs?
Roughly 60% of our entire spending goes to entitlements and mandatory spending (like existing debt interest payments). We ran a deficit (outlays exceeded income) of 1.5 trillion dollars in fiscal 2009. If we canceled 100% of defense and discretionary spending, we would save roughly 1.2 trillion dollars in 2009, and would still go broke as predicted above.Social Security and Medicare expenditures are funded by permanent appropriations and so are considered "mandatory" spending according to the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Funds to make federal interest payments have been automatically appropriated since 1847. Mandatory spending accounted for 53% of total federal outlays in FY2008, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 8.5%.
Mandatory spending is also expected to increase as a share of GDP. According to the Heritage Foundation, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will rise from 8.7% of GDP in 2010, to 11.0% by 2020 and to 18.1% by 2050. Since the federal government has historically collected about 18.4% of GDP in tax revenues, this means these three mandatory programs may absorb all federal revenues sometime around 2050. Unless these long-term fiscal imbalances are addressed by reforms to these programs, raising taxes or drastic cuts in discretionary programs, the federal government will at some point be unable to pay its obligations.
Both Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll tax revenues dedicated to those programs. Program tax revenues historically have exceeded payouts, resulting in program surpluses and the building of trust fund balances. The trust funds earn interest. Both Social Security and Medicare each have two component trust funds. As of FY2008, Social Security had a combined $2.4 trillion trust fund balance and Medicare's was $380 billion. If during an individual year program payouts exceed the sum of tax income and interest earned during that year (i.e., an annual program deficit), the trust fund for the program is drawn down to the extent of the shortfall. Legally, the mandatory nature of these programs compels the government to fund them to the extent of tax income plus any remaining trust fund balances, borrowing as needed. Once the trust funds are eliminated through expected future deficits, technically these programs can only draw on payroll taxes during the current year. In effect, they are "pay as you go" programs, with additional legal claims to the extent of their remaining trust fund balances.
Mandatory programs are affected by demographic trends. The number of workers continues declining relative to those receiving benefits. For example, the number of workers per retiree was 5.1 in 1960; this declined to 3.3 in 2007 and is projected to decline to 2.1 by 2040.These programs are also affected by per-person costs, which are also expected to increase at a rate significantly higher than the economy. This unfavorable combination of demographics and per-capita rate increases is expected to drive both Social Security and Medicare into large deficits during the 21st century. Multiple government sources have argued these programs are fiscally unsustainable as presently structured due to the extent of future borrowing and related interest required to fund them; here is a 2009 summary from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees:
The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.
Since the government borrowed and spent the trust funds' assets, there is no "lockbox" or marketable investment portfolio of $2.4 trillion for Social Security or $380 billion for Medicare. The trust funds contain non-marketable "IOU's" that the government is legally obligated to pay. In the absence of significant budget surpluses, the government will be required to convert these non-marketable securities to marketable securities by borrowing in the future, as trust fund claims are redeemed.
Greece is now at "junk bond" status and lending them money is going to be painful or impossible (right, Germany???). The US isn't as bad off, yet.Greece:
National debt, put at €300 billion ($413.6 billion), is bigger than the country's economy, with some estimates predicting it will reach 120 percent of gross domestic product in 2010. The country's deficit -- how much more it spends than it takes in -- is 12.7 percent.
US:
At the end of first quarter of 2010, the gross debt was 87.3% of GDP (a measure of the size of the economy), composed of debt held by the public (56.6%) and of intra-governmental debt (44.4%).
The White House has forecast a $1.6 trillion budget deficit this year, or about 10.6 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level since World War Two.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
In Canada to be employed you have to show proof of citizenship, I'm assuming you have to do something similar in the States. So any illegal immigrant can't show that because they don't have it. Since the employer knows this why would they deduct payroll taxes when the worker is undocumented? In fact wouldn't there be incentive not to pay payroll taxes, because if the IRS sees you employing X citizens but you are paying payroll tax for X+Y employees that's going to look suspicious.Lago PARANOIA wrote:LL are you aware that illegal immigrants:
A) Generally pay payroll taxes (or rather, their employer pays them) but aren't entitled to Medicare or Social Security and
Same answer: Lots of people that cannot get government aid or vote. Illegal immigrants do not get social security, they don't ask for police aid, they don't get medicaid, unemployment, or workman's compensation. They also do not get grants for healthcare, education, or the Earned Income Tax Credit.Lich-Loved wrote:Ok, I didn't ask the right question. What is the benefit of having millions and millions of poor and unskilled illegal immigrants in the country while at the same time increasing our spending on entitlement programs? How does allowing additional millions to enter improve American fiscal prospects given that we are going broke on entitlement spending as it is?Crissa wrote:some stuff
The problem with 'path to citizenship' is it instantly makes all of these workers useless. The only way these guys get useful work is because no one has to provide minimum wage, taxes, workman's comp and other insurance, social security benefits and the like AND businesses get to make money and pay a little tax on the side. Make them all citizens and you have an instant underclass that is no more useful to America than the millions on the government dole right now in cities across the country. I know of people in Texas that would fire (tomorrow) their landscapers and housekeepers if they had to pay minimum wage + expenses to some company. Some of my family is in construction there and while they do not have any workers/laborers (they are in design, not actual labor), they see that ALL the construction companies there hire illegals, no one even speaks English on the job site. This works ONLY because the labor is cheap. Make all these people citizens and you have a huge underclass that is not employed. "Path to citizenship" is a boondoggle that might as well be "path to unemployment" which is a very short path to "vote Left!!11!!" so that benefits continue to flow long after the people are useful to society. Hence my point about entitlement programs going broke.Crissa wrote:Same answer: Lots of people that cannot get government aid or vote. Illegal immigrants do not get social security, they don't ask for police aid, they don't get medicaid, unemployment, or workman's compensation. They also do not get grants for healthcare, education, or the Earned Income Tax Credit.Lich-Loved wrote:Ok, I didn't ask the right question. What is the benefit of having millions and millions of poor and unskilled illegal immigrants in the country while at the same time increasing our spending on entitlement programs? How does allowing additional millions to enter improve American fiscal prospects given that we are going broke on entitlement spending as it is?Crissa wrote:some stuff
The Republican answer to the immigration question is 'temporary work visas'. The Democratic answer is 'path to citizenship'.
The nativist answer is the status quo. I don't know what you intend to ask.
This sounds surprisingly supply-side. Interesting.Crissa wrote:Legal or illegal immigrants still pay taxes (at least, the majority of their employers do and businesses that sell to them do) and buy things. This increases economic activity. Immigrants of all types are less likely to request government aid or become in trouble with the law than those brought up in the US. They have more children, open more businesses, and are more fiscally mobile.
Sorry I forgot to add the source. Its wikipedia. There is no serious debate on this issue except from the extreme left that can't afford to have it be true. Our spending and demographics patterns alone tell the tale. Can you link up some CBO reports or a source more credible than the 2009 summary from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees that prove your claim?LL, your quote about SS is informed but highly ignorant. SS does not pay out more than it takes in - in fact, it pays out less than it pays in. There is a 'flaw' in it that it is all current-account; in other words, the current workers produce and pay for current retirees. However, aside from rising medical care costs, Social Security has never, ever been less than forty years from insolvent. You're worrying about a problem that never, ever gets closer. It's the same number of years from today until it goes insolvent as the day you were were born.
I think you should rewrite everything that comes after this part.Lich-Loved wrote:The problem with 'path to citizenship' is it...
So, status-quo == useful. No immigrants, no useful work, and so... Why should we secure our borders? If we do that, then we won't get useful work. Or something. I don't follow this 'logic'.Lich-Loved wrote:...instantly makes all of these workers useless.
So, illegal workers are needed because they displace other workers who then are on the dole.Lich-Loved wrote: "Path to citizenship" is a boondoggle that might as well be "path to unemployment" which is a very short path to "vote Left!!11!!" so that benefits continue to flow long after the people are useful to society. Hence my point about entitlement programs going broke.
No, Keynesian. Each person only consumes so much; so having more individuals increases consumption. This is why it's better to have things like progressive taxation and food stamps than it is to have lower taxes across the board.Lich-Loved wrote:This sounds surprisingly supply-side. Interesting.Crissa wrote:Legal or illegal immigrants still pay taxes (at least, the majority of their employers do and businesses that sell to them do) and buy things. This increases economic activity. Immigrants of all types are less likely to request government aid or become in trouble with the law than those brought up in the US. They have more children, open more businesses, and are more fiscally mobile.
...Nothing I said denied your evidence. Nothing in your quote comes close to dealing with my assertion. Please re-read what I said about the solvency of Social Security.Lich-Loved wrote:Sorry I forgot to add the source.
Sorry, I am not being clear. Here is the issue:Crissa wrote:So, status-quo == useful. No immigrants, no useful work, and so... Why should we secure our borders? If we do that, then we won't get useful work. Or something. I don't follow this 'logic'.
Holy crap where do YOU live? In 2009, the US Government took in 891 billion in Social security/social insurance receipts and spent 1300 billion on social security and medicaid/medicare alone AND spent an additional 650 billion on other "mandatory programs". Social security and MediX are paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer. Of course, since 47% of the US pays NO federal income tax and yet federal income tax is the single largest contributor to US federal revenue (just a bit ahead of - you guessed it, social insurance receipts again paid in vast amount by the same people paying taxes), we honest taxpayers are very much funding these public dole programs. This viewpoint is further backed up by SCOTUS in 1938 where the court ruled that social security was not a "contributory insurance program" and further that "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". Thus it is hardly any surprise that the life expectancy when the program was created in 1935 was 61years (basically only white men were initially offered the benefit) - when benefits began after that. Yeah that's right, the government never intended to pay a great deal out,it was a tax raising plan that was specifically NOT earmarked for any particular use. The federal government and has been struggling ever since to find a way to make it work.Are you an American at all? There are no public 'dole' programs in the 60% that you've listed. Social Security is paid by workers, for workers. Medicare is paid for by those who use the program. Medicaid... Only provides a minority of funding for medical care, not 'dole'.
Well about 40% of state funding comes from federal sources today, and we all know the states are going broke one by one and are running way in the red (the more liberal ones first of course). So yet again, the people paying taxes to the federal government are footing these state programs as well. Not to mention the same people are paying state income tax and local income tax.There are often state programs that help - reduce the cost of health care for children, pay for health care for those injured and unable to pay, and pay for those unable to help themselves.
Unemployment, food stamps, WIC, etc do get some federal funding, yes, but they're a tiny portion not included in your numbers. None of these are you allowed to use more the for n weeks out of your entire life, due to laws passed in 1995.
So we agree it is going broke......Nothing I said denied your evidence.Lich-Loved wrote:Sorry I forgot to add the source.
Seriously? Well of course it is always "30 years or so in the future" because exactly like the article you link to says:There's no argument about this information because only stupid right-wingers make the assumption that the insolvency date is always the same. It's not. It moves outward. Nine years ago you would have been whining about 2030, not 2037. Some years it goes out a year, some years it goes out two. This last year, it actually went backwards.
But it's still some date thirty years in the future.
So the fucking government has kept the fail date out far enough in the future so it always seems like a distant problem by changing the fucking rules of how and when payments are going to be made. The retirement age has gone up two years (from 65 to 67) and the tax rate was raised up to 4% in 1950 and now stands at a cozy 15%. Eventually the congress is going to run out of tricks to play and it will go broke.The most important thing to remember about social security is that it is a government handout, and the terms of that handout are decided through politics. Government, moreover, is continually revising the various rules and payment schedules, with the changes in 1984 being but one illustration. Every time social security changes its benefit schedule, changes its tax rates, changes its retirement age, or changes anything else, politicians are breaking past promises. Indeed, the whole concern about social security and its long-term viability is a result of politicians making grossly inconsistent promises to different people.[/b]
Even with the current massive build-up of surpluses, it is widely acknowledged that by 2030 the trust fund will be gone and payments will be hugely in excess of revenues. In other words the political promises that were made to beneficiaries are inconsistent with the commitments that were made to taxpayers. The two sides don't add up. There was massive lying to the public throughout our political system.
Well I think the Bush tax cuts were wildly irresponsible. We need all the revenue we can get. The war is, well the war, and if you argue against it, then I won't jump up and down in a thread on fiscal policy.FrankTrollman wrote:Entitlements are not making us go broke. We spend a lot on them, but they generally make up the difference in economic stimulation. The Iraq War cost $720 billion dollars, the Bush tax cuts cost $2.48 trillion. Public debt is currently $9.9 trillion. If we had just not done the two grossest pieces of financial incompetence of the Bush administration, we'd be in a totally fine financial position right now.
Yes, taxes have to rise. But we really don't need to cut entitlements. We would benefit from increasing entitlement spending. We could be as rich as Norwegians.
-Username17
No?Lich Loved wrote:Eventually the congress is going to run out of tricks to play and it will go broke.
So? Why would we slash spending? On anything? Taxes are in a slump right now because of the second great depression, but do you seriously think that decreasing federal spending is the solution to anything? How is your 1937 history?Lich Loved wrote:But our government is wildly lopsided toward entitlement spending. We can't cut enough spending, even if we eliminated all other programs, to anything more than to barely balance the budget if the budget for entitlements never increased beyond the rate of inflation. Additionally revenues are falling as fewer and fewer people actually pay federal taxes. The solution I most often hear: increase taxes, *might* actually be palatable if we also slash all kinds of federal spending.
...Then you quote something irrelevant. In 1984 they thought the go broke year was 2011.Lich-Loved wrote:Seriously? Well of course it is always "30 years or so in the future" because...
Why do you believe that "entitlement spending" loses the state money? Do you think people living on welfare will actually stash those dollar bills and sit on them, essentially taking them out of circulation? Of course they won't - they can not afford to save money. They will spend those dollar bills, and in doing so allow others to produce goods and provide services, meaning they get a share of that money and in turn put it to the same use.Lich-Loved wrote:But our government is wildly lopsided toward entitlement spending. We can't cut enough spending, even if we eliminated all other programs, to anything more than to barely balance the budget if the budget for entitlements never increased beyond the rate of inflation. Additionally revenues are falling as fewer and fewer people actually pay federal taxes. The solution I most often hear: increase taxes, *might* actually be palatable if we also slash all kinds of federal spending.
All in favour of this happening?Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It's funny. If lich-loved had ever taken even a 100 level econ course, he'd realize how stupid what he is saying is and probably commit seppuku to hide his shame.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Well, you started off completely insane, and have now just gone to crazy town.Lich-Loved wrote:
Well about 40% of state funding comes from federal sources today, and we all know the states are going broke one by one and are running way in the red (the more liberal ones first of course).
