Listen to the Peter Schiff Show Weekdays 10am to noon ET on www.SchiffRadio... Buy my newest book at www.tinyurl.com... Friend me on / peterschiff Follow me on www, PeterSchiff
The thing about social security, even if it was kept in a seperate fund that wasnt touched, the money collected would not cover the interest required to make up for inflation. The national debt is easily 5 times or more higher than the presented numbers of about 16 trillion, simply because of the future obligations that the US owes.To actually fix social security, they would need to take the entire amount owed to future retirees, and invest it now at a rate equal or higher than inflation.
It's good to see that people are finally beginning to realize that Republicans are more the same as Democrats, in that they themselves are in favor of subsidizing certain industries, and support big government all the same. The only difference between the two parties that we have now are the programs and businesses that they want to subsidize.
The Trust Fund is funded by Treasury Bills, which at their core are just bonds. Like all bonds, they have the risk of default, and that seems to be the direction we're headed.
Ive been following peter and researching alot of libertarian stuff for a while now and this is the first video that has genuinely made me scared and depressed about the overextension of government in people's lives.
Secretary Geithner did give an interview on C-Span where he said that medicare and medicaid were actually a fairly small percentage of the GDP and that the main contributor to the national debt was the Bush tax cuts. It is also true that the Senate already passed a tax package largely representing the Simpson-Boles plan but, as speaker, Boehner wouldn't even offer it up for a vote. As Ronald Reagan said "social security has nothing to do with the debt."
BrutusAlbion philosophy... "If people aren't willing to do something via voluntary action, the next logical step is to use force including the threat of lethal force against those who won't or can't comply."
It is a demonstrable fact that seniors are much better off today then they were before SS and Medicare. I've been paying into this system for 22 years already (less my college years, which I worked through). If anything, SS benefits should take be more important than bond holders. Most of the bond holders are central banks and foreign nations anyway. We cut off seniors to pay money to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia? This is crazy.
A feasible phase out plan might be to build extra nursing homes for older people who are too old to work and who didn't have the foresight to put money away. They could all share large barracks-style rooms and receive 3 square cafeteria meals a day. A little costly, but it would at least keep them from starving and would motivate middle aged people to put money away for themselves. We could phase out the buildings by 2030 and sell them.
We never had a pure free market, even in the 19th century. We still had Statists like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln who were against free trade, advocated a central bank, and subsidies for big business, protectionist tariffs, etc. Sure we had a freer market back in the 19th century but you will always have people who are for big govt, war, central banks, collusion of big business / govt, etc.
Peter, as fellow libertarian Dan Mitchell has said, it's most important that we try to restrain the growth of government, rather than get the budget balanced immediately (it's the Mitchell Golden Rule). Also, why rail against Ryan when (as you say) it's going to be nearly impossible to balance the budget in the near term when interest rates are probably going to have to be raised soon?
The military actually precisely falls perfectly under the General Welfare clause because the protection is beneficial to ALL. Do not confuse the fact that literally every war since WWII we've gone to has been undeclared and unconstitutional and therefore nothing more than a racket. These are not just wars in any way shape or form and the "normality" and acceptance of them by We The People will/is costing us dearly.
Let's start by separating 'defense spending' from 'military spending'. If we retain the defense spending, cut the military spending, and cut entitlements, perhaps we can get closer to a balanced budget.
I absolutely agree that government involvement in healthcare has driven up prices. But cutting the assistance to the elderly right now will not fix that. My point is that cutting healthcare assistance and subsidizing the banks at the same time is wrong. As I said, the Fed can hand out over $9 trillion to its friends in a year but when it comes to helping the sick and poor everyone tightens up.
The problem with welfare is it is a handout, not a hand up. For example: my brother's ex was making $7.50/hr, and receiving food stamps to help feed her 2 kids. She got a raise to $8.00/hr, and lost half of her food stamp payment, as well as her medicaid benefits. She actually had to ask to have her raise reversed. Welfare just gives you enough to survive on welfare, not get into a position where you don't need it.
Not everyone paid into it all their lives. Not only that, the cost of medicare runs at a deficit because the money paid in isn't nearly enough to cover all the costs of medicare participants. Maybe not a free lunch but damn near close.
Could somebody critque my idea on what I think would be a solution to this mess? What if we said that everybody over 55 who has paid into the system for at least 20 years will receieve all SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits until they die, and the people who have paid into those programs for a lesser time simply get reimbursed every penny taken from them for those programs taxes, and then for the people under 55 simply reimburse them all money taken from them from these programs taxes as well?
And nothing changed when people did embrace this fact for hundreds of thousands of years! It is exactly for that reason that people started creating villages and started working together! Do you know what the first tax was? It was helping out the village! Do you know why we have tax today? It is to helping out our entire nation! Who is going to voluntarily build roads? light the lightposts, ensure firefighters, policeman, a fair judicial system. Yeah... u can't do everything yourself!
I'm saying that Newton, Copernicus and Einstein didn't need GOVERNMENT 'HELP' in education. That Gates and Allen didn't need Government 'subsidies' 'incentives' or 'stimulus'. Humanity advances IN SPITE of beaurocrats, not BECAUSE of them.
Unfortunately at this point, eliminating 100% of the pentagon's (known) spending would still be insufficient to balance the budget. Eventually entitlement spending will grow to such a level that eliminating 100% of all discretionary spending may not even balance the budget. But please, emotional appeals are not arguments, they're psychological manipulations.
If you look at history, after the Great Depression of the 30's, spending was necessary to climb out of the financial disaster. President Carter cut spending due to a mild recession when he was in office and it did finally came through after Reagan took office but people really suffered and thought Carter was disconnected. As long as the Bush tax cuts are taking money out of circulation by padding rich bank accounts, the only solution is to print more money.
If every old person in the country received private money for social security, if those companies eventually broke, they would lose the benefit. The western population is getting increasingly older and less and less people are being born every year. That generates a deficit that, in the future, private companies probably won't be able to cover. Am I right?
During the Medieval era under the landowner- serf system of governance, they had a very difficult time to extract 10% from the serfs on the land. Any more and they had riots on their hands!
For another example, we are still giving billions of dollars to places like Pakistan and Israel, why cant that money go to help our own people who put something into the system. In the case of Social Security, if the money had been set aside and invested as they said they had done, then the trust would be in a surplus. And if it is just a tax like the Supreme Court says, why is it not paid on income over $150k? They take our money, give it to their buddies and themselves, then hang us out to dry
I didn't say why, I just said that it is a demonstrable fact that seniors are better off today than they were back then. Peter specifically said that seniors were worse off and that isn't true.
Anybody watch the American television show " Shark Tank", A common element of the show is business men wanting to do production of the product in another country so they can sell it in America and make a huge profit. These types of business men created the unemployment in America. Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats just sat back and watched because these business men gave them huge donations to their repective party
The economy already is tanking, even with our big spending. History has shown that downturns from natural, hands off policies are very quick to end, and growth returns. We are simply prolonging the pain and making it so much worse in the long term.
The "free economy" deception: Economics describe "Investment" as spending that pays for the production of capital goods. Deregulation allowed over-capitalization of stocks and firms took in money that was not used as investment but put directly into owners and CEO's pockets. The first downturn was the technology bubble. The problem is that "free market" ideologists in the know cooked the books and drained a lifetime of IRA savings from those retiring.
You have obviously forgotten that the USA was not supposed to have a military but a well regulated militia. Under Article One Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years. It's in the constitution. Written clearly don't you think? The militia part is regulated in the part which says that people have the right to bear arms under a ''well regulated militia''. But people forget that second part ALL THE TIME.
And in response, other countries will raise THEIR import taxes, which hurts our ability to export. After that, the prices of everything in this country will raise dramatically. Why do you think that higher prices for people are a good thing?
Can you beleive that at one time not many years after social security was established, they were worried about eventually having too much money in the social security fund?....what happened? Government was what happened. Our government just cant handle money....dosent matter the party...
This is what the people on the left have CONSTANTLY counted on for years. The Emotional appeal. These people have the most nauseating self-righteous attitude of any group of people on the whole planet. Cutting out these programs is a matter of PRINCIPLE and accepting REALITY, which is something that these people don't live in. Eventually the situation in America will be so bad financially (if we keep this up), that it won't matter if these people really are on the street.
What happens if people don't give the government their money? People will forcibly take it (theft) and the person who refused to pay will be taken from their house by force and locked in a cell (kidnapping). If you are of the opinion that theft and kidnapping are great solutions to social problems then continue on your way. There are peaceful alternatives that don't require threats of coercion, imprisonment or theft.
Obviously you don't have to cut benefits right away. Instead, focus on cutting foreign expenses and lowering taxes to accompany that. There's one start.
true while there is a trust fund but the issue that Peter refers to is that the government has borrowed against that fun and run it almost dry. Its been used for government spending, etc. Now the government has to borrow more and more in order to pay back the benefits. This is digging us into a whole! I think it was in the 90's when they decided to "TAP" into the SS fund.
Im not advocating for Printing money nor borrowing money. What I was getting at is that for the people in my plan who would not be receiving government benefits would just be getting their money in increments starting with people closer to 55 and not people at age like 20 or something. Now of course that would increase the deficit regardless. But wouldnt it be worth it so we wouldnt have to worry about the unfunded liabilities anymore if we would just get that over with and only get better?
Here is the problem, the US government can give the banks $1 trillion dollars and the Fed give out $9 trillion, yet when it comes to the tax payer the coffers are empty. We spend over $700 billion on the military and close to $70 billion on education. What about the investments that the government holds, which according to the latest CAFR includes over 50% of the stock market? So we payed all these taxes, the banks get trillions, but when it comes to programs for the people there is no money.
And with Social Security, I understand the Supreme Court ruled that it was just another tax. And in that case it is just a tax on the poor of this country. I have nothing against wealthy people and believe that tax should be almost non existent. What I do have a problem with is wealthy individuals and corporations getting out of taxes, while the little man is stuck always footing the full bill. Then when it comes time for them to get the services they were promised, well so sorry Charlie.
I'm a little in favor of those voter laws which indirectly (whether or not intentionally doesn't bother me) prevent migrants, illegals,and oldsters from voting easily. America became one big welfare office, and our social security cards are actually ATMs which withdraw from our nation's future prosperity.
You mean as in how public education completely failed in the 19th and 20th century? Causing one of the largest economic booms in history and improving living standards across the board. Oh and thats right, all the major highways miraculously appeared thanks to private capital that saw the potential of creating a vast interconnected system for transportation! And the army is not a national army but an army of mercenaries. We all know people who work for money are the best! Mercs all the way!
That little piece of paper is a T-bill and it is the basis of the debt structure in this nation. I assume by your tone that you are ok with the banks not returning your money to you because "someone put a piece of code in your account name and now they don't want to pay it back".
WAL MART is number 1 importer of foreign made products from other countries. Wal Mart will move to imports from india when production in china becomes to expensive
No. Spending prolonged the Depression. Europe was hit just as hard as the U.S. yet the governments across the pound rebounded years ahead of the U.S. while America was still trying to spend its way out its economic misfortune. The reason America came out of the Depression was because Hitler pushed investors out of Europe (due to fear of war) and into the welcoming arms of America. It's this capital flow that brought us out of the Depression not Gov. spending
Ok look -- I'm 26 years old, and I've paid SHIT TONS of money into social security, but you know what? In exchange for NOT paying into anymore, I won't ask for a SINGLE dime back from the system. I can manage my OWN retirement. Deal?
I sell Medicare. Seniors still complain about $5 co-payments. I am 38 and I am disgusted with what I see and hear out in the field. Seniors should be kissing out asses that they still get these programs instead of complaining all the time.
i agree with what you said but i think a much more important cut in spending would be from the Dept of Defense because the people have already experienced the bailouts and tarp do we really need to take there healthcare before we end the military bases everywhere and the endless wars
From what i see of my plan the negatives would be a huge ballooning of the deficit, however we wouldnt have to worry about the deficit increasing after that since SS, Medicare and Medicaid will be gone
Social security and medicare are not part of the federal budget. They are a separate portion of the budget taken from the 15.3% payroll tax. The government stole the money, however, despite that the trust fund is still there and it is quite big. We don't need a massive SS/medicare. We could lower the tax to 10%. Then use it as a pay-as-you-go where all the money collected is immediately distributed to seniors.
In theory people could use the money they spend in taxes to fund medicare to pay insurance for themselves, ok this part I get. But social security? That issue is a bit more complicated. My grandfather worked long years for an airline as a mechanic, and as an extra to social security, he paid a private social security company (to get extra money when he retired). So they broke because of bad management, and now he doesn't get any money. My point is, what if this was the general rule?
No Peter is wrong, if we want to end the vicious cycle we can end the debt based monetary system and get out of the wars overseas. We can pay the social programs for decades with the money we throw at wars and the debt based monetary system.
Takeaway: In the end there is no real choice..just choose Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum....both candidates will keep on doing the same mistakes all over again while the country still holds together somehow....the only difference will be the name of their political parties, as they both will still always try to please most of the voters
How many people are unemployed? Without that net how would they eat? Jobs and charities don't appear overnight. And besides if you care about liberty why would impose no social security on those who want it? A Opt-out would be fine.
private capitali is not the solution to EVERY problem , because the world without problems does NOT EXIST. Private capital is the BEST solution, but it does not solve ALL problems. But if you try to force a better solution by Government, you will end up with a WORSE situation.
I guess the founders created the Tenth Amendment for kicks then? The commerce law was to regulate (take a big guess!) commerce! It was to prevent trade wars between the states and keep things kosher. Also, don't bother with the "general welfare" clause as general means everyone. Not just old people. Not just poor people. Everyone.
SO getting rid of minimum wage so people can make even less would solve what? It get people working for even less than nothing that you say minimum wage is.
The estimates Ive found on this range from 60 to 226 trillion dollars. It doesnt really matter what the number is since it is not mathematically possible for the market to absorb that kind of influx without severe side effects including even worse inflation. Not to mention the government is broke to begin with.
unfortunately the slime in Washington has already spent your money sir or ma'am. Treasury bills (which are used for SS payments) are IOUS supplied by a government that no longer has any money. I'm only 22 and have only paid taxes for about 5 years. I dont expect to get either SS or Medicare, regardless of the few thou I've probably paid into it and will continue to do so until the programs become insolvent.
I believe Americans DO pay into social security. Americans are required to pay a tax that is to be used explicitly to fund social security, and nothing else. Where you are correct, though, is that yeah, the government doesn't treat it any differently. They put all the money into one large pot and spend it all. Regardless of the reasoning, it is still fraud, and the tax should be changed and advertised as a "general purpose tax", or eliminated altogether, and let the people spend their own money.
You are wrong, 10% of federal taxes are paid for national defense. Another 10% is paid out of every pay check for Social security. It is not charity, it is a paid for insurance safety net program against unforeseen misfortune.
helllo. I w've live for 30 years in a society where thre was NOT FCUKIN minimum wage. Then Imade offf to illegal land where I had no rights whatsoever. Now what, coach cioach?
Roosevelt filed many anti-trust suits which is probably the only reason we have any regulations today. Based upon his knowledge, the creation of wealth, as a result of industrial progress in the 19th Century, was, literally, a greater capitalization of wealth than in all of recorded history, but the distribution of wealth was not proportional to the founding principles of the country. "Our country”, he said, “was founded on the principle that every man up was a better motto than some men down.”
I think I may have to tell you again its not a ponzi scheme, the reason we are in so much debt is because we charge ourselves interest on our tax dollars...interest that doesn't exist to pay so we have to borrow it from the same banks the fed does to pay things. We had a so called "sound economy" according to fascists in the 19th century and people were BROKE. We were stuck taking care of elderly parents, if you like that idea keep your beliefs the way they are..
Yes, it is clearly written and clearly doesn't say what you claim it does. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" means what it says, they can raise and support an army for as long as they want but the money has to be reapproriated by congress every two years. How you could not understand such simple language is beyond me.
An economy that is based on the private ownership of property is the best system but if the distribution of wealth is such that only the rich can own property, its really no different than a government that owns everything. In his book, The New Nationalism, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “To leave the question of contract, between employer and employee, merely to individual action means the absolute destruction of individualism.”
The debt clock goes up as fast as it does because of interest, not spending. We are charged interest on a daily basis. You are advocating theft and usury, people were executed for this crap years ago. Usury was outlawed for a reason and its the primary problem we have now.
What about 'defence'? I worry about so much literal, life and death power in the hands of private interests in this respect. Otherwise, I think I agree with you totally. (still learning...)
I would add the middle & poor should pay equal to less then the rich by cutting taxes for everyone else. Then pay for a government matching that tax revenue. I would take money out of circulation to match revenue & prices would collaspe for food, education, energy, & housing further, so poor can afford it without any debt, or loans from creditors.
Nicely done, Peter, I'm glad you're back to hammering the rethuglicans for all their feigned indignation for profligate spending. Ryan is a disaster and he's no fiscal conservative. The rethuglicans absolutely deserve to lose... as do the dims, but one of these 2 disasters has to win, so it may as well be the devils we know. I'll vote for Gary Johnson, but I'll be hoping Obama beats Mittens.
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
That actually sounds pretty damn reasonable to me
14:56 Freudian Slip.
"MediQueer"
The thing about social security, even if it was kept in a seperate fund that wasnt touched, the money collected would not cover the interest required to make up for inflation. The national debt is easily 5 times or more higher than the presented numbers of about 16 trillion, simply because of the future obligations that the US owes.To actually fix social security, they would need to take the entire amount owed to future retirees, and invest it now at a rate equal or higher than inflation.
It's good to see that people are finally beginning to realize that Republicans are more the same as Democrats, in that they themselves are in favor of subsidizing certain industries, and support big government all the same. The only difference between the two parties that we have now are the programs and businesses that they want to subsidize.
The Trust Fund is funded by Treasury Bills, which at their core are just bonds. Like all bonds, they have the risk of default, and that seems to be the direction we're headed.
Ive been following peter and researching alot of libertarian stuff for a while now and this is the first video that has genuinely made me scared and depressed about the overextension of government in people's lives.
Amazing explanation well done Peter!
Secretary Geithner did give an interview on C-Span where he said that medicare and medicaid were actually a fairly small percentage of the GDP and that the main contributor to the national debt was the Bush tax cuts. It is also true that the Senate already passed a tax package largely representing the Simpson-Boles plan but, as speaker, Boehner wouldn't even offer it up for a vote. As Ronald Reagan said "social security has nothing to do with the debt."
BrutusAlbion philosophy...
"If people aren't willing to do something via voluntary action, the next logical step is to use force including the threat of lethal force against those who won't or can't comply."
It is a demonstrable fact that seniors are much better off today then they were before SS and Medicare. I've been paying into this system for 22 years already (less my college years, which I worked through). If anything, SS benefits should take be more important than bond holders. Most of the bond holders are central banks and foreign nations anyway. We cut off seniors to pay money to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia? This is crazy.
A feasible phase out plan might be to build extra nursing homes for older people who are too old to work and who didn't have the foresight to put money away. They could all share large barracks-style rooms and receive 3 square cafeteria meals a day. A little costly, but it would at least keep them from starving and would motivate middle aged people to put money away for themselves. We could phase out the buildings by 2030 and sell them.
If you want to phase a program out the best way to do it, is to privatize it.
I knew the budget was bad but I didnt even think about the interest rate assumptions. Haha thats just the icing on the cake.
We never had a pure free market, even in the 19th century. We still had Statists like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln who were against free trade, advocated a central bank, and subsidies for big business, protectionist tariffs, etc.
Sure we had a freer market back in the 19th century but you will always have people who are for big govt, war, central banks, collusion of big business / govt, etc.
Peter, as fellow libertarian Dan Mitchell has said, it's most important that we try to restrain the growth of government, rather than get the budget balanced immediately (it's the Mitchell Golden Rule). Also, why rail against Ryan when (as you say) it's going to be nearly impossible to balance the budget in the near term when interest rates are probably going to have to be raised soon?
The military actually precisely falls perfectly under the General Welfare clause because the protection is beneficial to ALL. Do not confuse the fact that literally every war since WWII we've gone to has been undeclared and unconstitutional and therefore nothing more than a racket. These are not just wars in any way shape or form and the "normality" and acceptance of them by We The People will/is costing us dearly.
Let's start by separating 'defense spending' from 'military spending'. If we retain the defense spending, cut the military spending, and cut entitlements, perhaps we can get closer to a balanced budget.
Peter, thanks for uploading this, I was hoping you would!
I absolutely agree that government involvement in healthcare has driven up prices. But cutting the assistance to the elderly right now will not fix that. My point is that cutting healthcare assistance and subsidizing the banks at the same time is wrong. As I said, the Fed can hand out over $9 trillion to its friends in a year but when it comes to helping the sick and poor everyone tightens up.
The problem with welfare is it is a handout, not a hand up.
For example: my brother's ex was making $7.50/hr, and receiving food stamps to help feed her 2 kids. She got a raise to $8.00/hr, and lost half of her food stamp payment, as well as her medicaid benefits.
She actually had to ask to have her raise reversed.
Welfare just gives you enough to survive on welfare, not get into a position where you don't need it.
Not everyone paid into it all their lives. Not only that, the cost of medicare runs at a deficit because the money paid in isn't nearly enough to cover all the costs of medicare participants. Maybe not a free lunch but damn near close.
That's the truth.
Could somebody critque my idea on what I think would be a solution to this mess?
What if we said that everybody over 55 who has paid into the system for at least 20 years will receieve all SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits until they die, and the people who have paid into those programs for a lesser time simply get reimbursed every penny taken from them for those programs taxes, and then for the people under 55 simply reimburse them all money taken from them from these programs taxes as well?
And nothing changed when people did embrace this fact for hundreds of thousands of years!
It is exactly for that reason that people started creating villages and started working together!
Do you know what the first tax was?
It was helping out the village!
Do you know why we have tax today?
It is to helping out our entire nation!
Who is going to voluntarily build roads? light the lightposts, ensure firefighters, policeman, a fair judicial system.
Yeah...
u can't do everything yourself!
I'm saying that Newton, Copernicus and Einstein didn't need GOVERNMENT 'HELP' in education. That Gates and Allen didn't need Government 'subsidies' 'incentives' or 'stimulus'. Humanity advances IN SPITE of beaurocrats, not BECAUSE of them.
Unfortunately at this point, eliminating 100% of the pentagon's (known) spending would still be insufficient to balance the budget. Eventually entitlement spending will grow to such a level that eliminating 100% of all discretionary spending may not even balance the budget.
But please, emotional appeals are not arguments, they're psychological manipulations.
If you look at the system with "how would I design a system to make people dependent on the government" our welfare system make a lot of sense.
:(
If you look at history, after the Great Depression of the 30's, spending was necessary to climb out of the financial disaster. President Carter cut spending due to a mild recession when he was in office and it did finally came through after Reagan took office but people really suffered and thought Carter was disconnected. As long as the Bush tax cuts are taking money out of circulation by padding rich bank accounts, the only solution is to print more money.
If every old person in the country received private money for social security, if those companies eventually broke, they would lose the benefit. The western population is getting increasingly older and less and less people are being born every year. That generates a deficit that, in the future, private companies probably won't be able to cover. Am I right?
During the Medieval era under the landowner- serf system of governance, they had a very difficult time to extract 10% from the serfs on the land. Any more and they had riots on their hands!
i have to remind myself of that all the time..but seems more and more folks are just that; crazy
For another example, we are still giving billions of dollars to places like Pakistan and Israel, why cant that money go to help our own people who put something into the system. In the case of Social Security, if the money had been set aside and invested as they said they had done, then the trust would be in a surplus. And if it is just a tax like the Supreme Court says, why is it not paid on income over $150k? They take our money, give it to their buddies and themselves, then hang us out to dry
I didn't say why, I just said that it is a demonstrable fact that seniors are better off today than they were back then. Peter specifically said that seniors were worse off and that isn't true.
Awesome stuff...why do i keep forgetting to listen to the show?? i need to change that...
Anybody watch the American television show " Shark Tank", A common element of the show is business men wanting to do production of the product in another country so they can sell it in America and make a huge profit. These types of business men created the unemployment in America. Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats just sat back and watched because these business men gave them huge donations to their repective party
But dang, didnt think it would still be in the 10s of trillions.
Well then I have no idea what to do then : /
The economy already is tanking, even with our big spending. History has shown that downturns from natural, hands off policies are very quick to end, and growth returns. We are simply prolonging the pain and making it so much worse in the long term.
The "free economy" deception: Economics describe "Investment" as spending that pays for the production of capital goods. Deregulation allowed over-capitalization of stocks and firms took in money that was not used as investment but put directly into owners and CEO's pockets. The first downturn was the technology bubble. The problem is that "free market" ideologists in the know cooked the books and drained a lifetime of IRA savings from those retiring.
You have obviously forgotten that the USA was not supposed to have a military but a well regulated militia.
Under Article One Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years.
It's in the constitution. Written clearly don't you think?
The militia part is regulated in the part which says that people have the right to bear arms under a ''well regulated militia''. But people forget that second part ALL THE TIME.
Great idea. that tax system is actualy more progressive than the current system where people over a million tend to pay only 20% tax at most.
And in response, other countries will raise THEIR import taxes, which hurts our ability to export. After that, the prices of everything in this country will raise dramatically. Why do you think that higher prices for people are a good thing?
Can you beleive that at one time not many years after social security was established, they were worried about eventually having too much money in the social security fund?....what happened? Government was what happened. Our government just cant handle money....dosent matter the party...
They are one in the same. The 1% tax eventually leads to 99%.
You must oppose the principle. Or lose the game.
This is what the people on the left have CONSTANTLY counted on for years. The Emotional appeal. These people have the most nauseating self-righteous attitude of any group of people on the whole planet. Cutting out these programs is a matter of PRINCIPLE and accepting REALITY, which is something that these people don't live in. Eventually the situation in America will be so bad financially (if we keep this up), that it won't matter if these people really are on the street.
What happens if people don't give the government their money?
People will forcibly take it (theft) and the person who refused to pay will be taken from their house by force and locked in a cell (kidnapping).
If you are of the opinion that theft and kidnapping are great solutions to social problems then continue on your way. There are peaceful alternatives that don't require threats of coercion, imprisonment or theft.
Obviously you don't have to cut benefits right away. Instead, focus on cutting foreign expenses and lowering taxes to accompany that. There's one start.
I've heard 40, 30, and 28 years for the Ryan budget balancing so far. So which is it?
true while there is a trust fund but the issue that Peter refers to is that the government has borrowed against that fun and run it almost dry. Its been used for government spending, etc. Now the government has to borrow more and more in order to pay back the benefits. This is digging us into a whole! I think it was in the 90's when they decided to "TAP" into the SS fund.
real talk
do some government employees don't pay social security taxes?
So far no one has showed that the poor were better off before 1913... or before big gvmnt ...
We were richer as anything you can define when prices were lower, since inflation; higher prices has not enriched the daily life of Americans
Im not advocating for Printing money nor borrowing money.
What I was getting at is that for the people in my plan who would not be receiving government benefits would just be getting their money in increments starting with people closer to 55 and not people at age like 20 or something.
Now of course that would increase the deficit regardless. But wouldnt it be worth it so we wouldnt have to worry about the unfunded liabilities anymore if we would just get that over with and only get better?
Here is the problem, the US government can give the banks $1 trillion dollars and the Fed give out $9 trillion, yet when it comes to the tax payer the coffers are empty. We spend over $700 billion on the military and close to $70 billion on education. What about the investments that the government holds, which according to the latest CAFR includes over 50% of the stock market? So we payed all these taxes, the banks get trillions, but when it comes to programs for the people there is no money.
And with Social Security, I understand the Supreme Court ruled that it was just another tax. And in that case it is just a tax on the poor of this country. I have nothing against wealthy people and believe that tax should be almost non existent. What I do have a problem with is wealthy individuals and corporations getting out of taxes, while the little man is stuck always footing the full bill. Then when it comes time for them to get the services they were promised, well so sorry Charlie.
Al Gore put it all in a lock box and ran off with the key in the 90s.
I'm a little in favor of those voter laws which indirectly (whether or not intentionally doesn't bother me) prevent migrants, illegals,and oldsters from voting easily. America became one big welfare office, and our social security cards are actually ATMs which withdraw from our nation's future prosperity.
You mean as in how public education completely failed in the 19th and 20th century? Causing one of the largest economic booms in history and improving living standards across the board.
Oh and thats right, all the major highways miraculously appeared thanks to private capital that saw the potential of creating a vast interconnected system for transportation!
And the army is not a national army but an army of mercenaries. We all know people who work for money are the best! Mercs all the way!
That little piece of paper is a T-bill and it is the basis of the debt structure in this nation. I assume by your tone that you are ok with the banks not returning your money to you because "someone put a piece of code in your account name and now they don't want to pay it back".
WAL MART is number 1 importer of foreign made products from other countries. Wal Mart will move to imports from india when production in china becomes to expensive
No. Spending prolonged the Depression. Europe was hit just as hard as the U.S. yet the governments across the pound rebounded years ahead of the U.S. while America was still trying to spend its way out its economic misfortune. The reason America came out of the Depression was because Hitler pushed investors out of Europe (due to fear of war) and into the welcoming arms of America. It's this capital flow that brought us out of the Depression not Gov. spending
Ok look -- I'm 26 years old, and I've paid SHIT TONS of money into social security, but you know what? In exchange for NOT paying into anymore, I won't ask for a SINGLE dime back from the system. I can manage my OWN retirement. Deal?
I sell Medicare. Seniors still complain about $5 co-payments. I am 38 and I am disgusted with what I see and hear out in the field. Seniors should be kissing out asses that they still get these programs instead of complaining all the time.
i agree with what you said but i think a much more important cut in spending would be from the Dept of Defense because the people have already experienced the bailouts and tarp do we really need to take there healthcare before we end the military bases everywhere and the endless wars
From what i see of my plan the negatives would be a huge ballooning of the deficit, however we wouldnt have to worry about the deficit increasing after that since SS, Medicare and Medicaid will be gone
Social security and medicare are not part of the federal budget. They are a separate portion of the budget taken from the 15.3% payroll tax. The government stole the money, however, despite that the trust fund is still there and it is quite big. We don't need a massive SS/medicare. We could lower the tax to 10%. Then use it as a pay-as-you-go where all the money collected is immediately distributed to seniors.
No, that would force large businesses out of the country, and put many small businesses out of business.
Completely unthoughtful, terrible idea.
So your justification is that since they were a burden before they should be allowed to be a bigger burden?
WTF
How about we just stop charging ourselves interest on our own dollars and we can pay for these programs many times over.
In theory people could use the money they spend in taxes to fund medicare to pay insurance for themselves, ok this part I get. But social security? That issue is a bit more complicated. My grandfather worked long years for an airline as a mechanic, and as an extra to social security, he paid a private social security company (to get extra money when he retired). So they broke because of bad management, and now he doesn't get any money. My point is, what if this was the general rule?
We all are aires to a fortune. Haven't you received your monthy email from Nigeria telling you they need to send you cash yet?
No Peter is wrong, if we want to end the vicious cycle we can end the debt based monetary system and get out of the wars overseas. We can pay the social programs for decades with the money we throw at wars and the debt based monetary system.
Takeaway: In the end there is no real choice..just choose Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum....both candidates will keep on doing the same mistakes all over again while the country still holds together somehow....the only difference will be the name of their political parties, as they both will still always try to please most of the voters
Peter, if the Republicans said what you say there would be no Republican Party. The problem is with the voters not the politicians.
How many people are unemployed? Without that net how would they eat? Jobs and charities don't appear overnight. And besides if you care about liberty why would impose no social security on those who want it? A Opt-out would be fine.
private capitali is not the solution to EVERY problem , because the world without problems does NOT EXIST. Private capital is the BEST solution, but it does not solve ALL problems. But if you try to force a better solution by Government, you will end up with a WORSE situation.
Fascists have to be put in their place, they are not used to this treatment and its richly deserved.
Commerce, really? So government should provide for and regulate every last thing that could possibly be for sale? Are you high?!
I guess the founders created the Tenth Amendment for kicks then? The commerce law was to regulate (take a big guess!) commerce! It was to prevent trade wars between the states and keep things kosher. Also, don't bother with the "general welfare" clause as general means everyone. Not just old people. Not just poor people. Everyone.
SO getting rid of minimum wage so people can make even less would solve what? It get people working for even less than nothing that you say minimum wage is.
Peter Schiff you are one of the greatest economist who live now.
The estimates Ive found on this range from 60 to 226 trillion dollars. It doesnt really matter what the number is since it is not mathematically possible for the market to absorb that kind of influx without severe side effects including even worse inflation. Not to mention the government is broke to begin with.
I'm 54 so I guess I'm Screwed
unfortunately the slime in Washington has already spent your money sir or ma'am. Treasury bills (which are used for SS payments) are IOUS supplied by a government that no longer has any money. I'm only 22 and have only paid taxes for about 5 years. I dont expect to get either SS or Medicare, regardless of the few thou I've probably paid into it and will continue to do so until the programs become insolvent.
I believe Americans DO pay into social security. Americans are required to pay a tax that is to be used explicitly to fund social security, and nothing else. Where you are correct, though, is that yeah, the government doesn't treat it any differently. They put all the money into one large pot and spend it all. Regardless of the reasoning, it is still fraud, and the tax should be changed and advertised as a "general purpose tax", or eliminated altogether, and let the people spend their own money.
You are wrong, 10% of federal taxes are paid for national defense. Another 10% is paid out of every pay check for Social security. It is not charity, it is a paid for insurance safety net program against unforeseen misfortune.
helllo. I w've live for 30 years in a society where thre was NOT FCUKIN minimum wage. Then Imade offf to illegal land where I had no rights whatsoever. Now what, coach cioach?
Fine, fork over your money to the govt, let me decide if I want to volunteer my money or not.
Right on!!!
Roosevelt filed many anti-trust suits which is probably the only reason we have any regulations today. Based upon his knowledge, the creation of wealth, as a result of industrial progress in the 19th Century, was, literally, a greater capitalization of wealth than in all of recorded history, but the distribution of wealth was not proportional to the founding principles of the country. "Our country”, he said, “was founded on the principle that every man up was a better motto than some men down.”
I think I may have to tell you again its not a ponzi scheme, the reason we are in so much debt is because we charge ourselves interest on our tax dollars...interest that doesn't exist to pay so we have to borrow it from the same banks the fed does to pay things. We had a so called "sound economy" according to fascists in the 19th century and people were BROKE. We were stuck taking care of elderly parents, if you like that idea keep your beliefs the way they are..
Yes, it is clearly written and clearly doesn't say what you claim it does.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
means what it says, they can raise and support an army for as long as they want but the money has to be reapproriated by congress every two years. How you could not understand such simple language is beyond me.
An economy that is based on the private ownership of property is the best system but if the distribution of wealth is such that only the rich can own property, its really no different than a government that owns everything. In his book, The New Nationalism, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “To leave the question of contract, between employer and employee, merely to individual action means the absolute destruction of individualism.”
lol this is totally off topic, but my macro economics class at Uni uses Ben Bernanke's textbook... I'm refusing to buy it :D
Social security is not the ponzi scheme, its the debt based monetary system our fascist governments force us to use that's the ponzi scheme.
You severely underestimate the power-hungry nature of politicians.
The debt clock goes up as fast as it does because of interest, not spending. We are charged interest on a daily basis. You are advocating theft and usury, people were executed for this crap years ago. Usury was outlawed for a reason and its the primary problem we have now.
What about 'defence'? I worry about so much literal, life and death power in the hands of private interests in this respect. Otherwise, I think I agree with you totally. (still learning...)
I would add the middle & poor should pay equal to less then the rich by cutting taxes for everyone else. Then pay for a government matching that tax revenue. I would take money out of circulation to match revenue & prices would collaspe for food, education, energy, & housing further, so poor can afford it without any debt, or loans from creditors.
Nicely done, Peter, I'm glad you're back to hammering the rethuglicans for all their feigned indignation for profligate spending. Ryan is a disaster and he's no fiscal conservative.
The rethuglicans absolutely deserve to lose... as do the dims, but one of these 2 disasters has to win, so it may as well be the devils we know. I'll vote for Gary Johnson, but I'll be hoping Obama beats Mittens.