Carly Fiorina gets PWND on Fox News

[mawilson 2,133]

Lets look at it another way, a personal way. Lets assume you have debt right. Can you pay down your debt, let alone faster, by reducing your income? No, you need to increase your income.

Not necessarily. Why would you get a second job if you had to hire a babysitter

who costs more than what that job pays?

Besides, no-one (and I mean no-one) is talking about paying down the debt.

Right now the major issue is the *deficit* - spending more than we're taking in.

Not adding to the debt is a good start.

[mawilson 2,133]

The current CBO deficit projections work on exisiting law. That existing law is for those tax cuts to expire at the end of the year. Any extension of any part of these tax cuts beyond 2010 will blow a new hole into the already bad projections. The $4 trillion is the correct figure to work off of.

The projections aren't bad if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for everyone.

They are only bad if we extend them, especially for the middle class.

[Heracles 417]

But of course they will be impacted. The good rich won't have enough left to let trickle down. [/tea party idiocy]

Trickle down reminds me of the Mr Potter days. Where the rest of the country waited with their hands out, for the 1 in 100,000 that was wealthy to spend their dollar. Just hoping they can get some crumbs. Thankfully the rest of the world has moved passed that and realize that trickle up and down is actually the more efficient model. That is, the largest class doing the trickling - the middle class.

America once had this approach, in the 50's and 60s. It also coincides with the country's largest boom, highest Q.O.L and S.O.L and it being the leader in ever international comparison back then; even put Europeans to shame.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

Not necessarily. Why would you get a second job if you had to hire a babysitter

who costs more than what that job pays?

Besides, no-one (and I mean no-one) is talking about paying down the debt.

Right now the major issue is the *deficit* - spending more than we're taking in.

Not adding to the debt is a good start.

How does cutting your income pay off any more debt? Have you ever heard any financial guru say cut your income to pay off debt?

I agree and the problem is ideological. Repubs talk big about paying off debt but go all mum when you mention defense. How about simply closing tax loopholes? Implementing the highly successful federal GST/VAT, to ensure illegal aliens and those in the black market begin to pay tax. These are common sense solutions, with quantifiable and real world results. In fact, by implementing a federal GST/VAT, the government can begin to lower income taxes; which is the right's wet dream.

You and I can sit here, have a discussion about this and will look at data presented by each other. The problem in the US is that many just want to shoot by ideological stances or opinions. They don't care if America becomes Sudan because of their polices, they will still ignore everyone else. How do you have a debate or expect the country to progress with that attitude and mindset? Where nothing is every up for a legitimate discussion, where no one cares about the ROI or conducting a cost/benefit analysis. It's all about what I believe..

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The projections aren't bad if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for everyone.

They are only bad if we extend them, especially for the middle class.

Well, we're currently on track to double the debt over the course of the decade. That's with the tax cuts expiring. I'd say that's bad. Sure, adding $4 trillion (or $3.3 trillion) to that pile is worse.

Bottom line is that the health care system needs actual reform - reform that drives down cost. That would ease Medicare and Medicaid and free up resources to grow economic sectors other than the health care industry.

The retirement age needs to go up - we live longer. The system wasn't designed for people to draw benefits for 10+ years.

Add to this the need to slim the defense budget - and significantly so - and we'll actually get somwhere.

Trickle down reminds me of the Mr Potter days. Where the rest of the country waited with their hands out, for the 1 in 100,000 that was wealthy to spend their dollar. Just hoping they can get some crumbs. Thankfully the rest of the world has moved passed that and realize that trickle up and down is actually the more efficient model. That is, the largest class doing the trickling - the middle class.

America once had this approach, in the 50's and 60s. It also coincides with the country's largest boom, highest Q.O.L and S.O.L and it being the leader in ever international comparison back then; even put Europeans to shame.

Absolutely!

Edited October 20, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

Well, we're currently on track to double the debt over the course of the decade. That's with the tax cuts expiring. I'd say that's bad. Sure, adding $4 trillion (or $3.3 trillion) to that pile is worse.

Bottom line is that the health care system needs actual reform - reform that drives down cost. That would ease Medicare and Medicaid and free up resources to grow economic sectors other than the health care industry.

The retirement age needs to go up - we live longer. The system wasn't designed for people to draw benefits for 10+ years.

Add to this the need to slim the defense budget - and significantly so - and we'll actually get somwhere.

Reducing the total defense expenditure by 30 percent, saves $300+ billion a year, yet still puts the country well ahead China in #2.

What many who BS about cutting back ignore with regards to health care is that the US already spends 2 to 2.5 times per capita that of other countries, yet does not deliver any better quality or access to all. Implementing a NHS and mimicking the leaders in health care, like the Netherlands, would actually reduce the United States expenditure on health care by 48%. Nope don't want to hear it because socialism bla bla bla, USPS bla bla bla...

They don't want to hear that as the government operating anything and defense are no-go areas for the right.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, we're currently on track to double the debt over the course of the decade. That's with the tax cuts expiring.

I believe you're wrong.

CBO projections with and without policy changes:

[scandal 951]

a frustrated Wallace begged Fiorina seven times to “name one single entitlement expenditure you’re willing to cut” because “that’s where the money is.” Fiorina’s only response? “You’re asking a typical political question”:

She's not answering the question not because she doesn't understand it, nor because she doesn't know the answer to it. She isn't answering because NO ONE who aspires to federal office can dare answer it honestly. You can thank the AARP for that. Entitlement reforms are essential, but political suicide to tackle head on. They are literally the 3rd rail of US politics, and avoided like the plague by both parties.

Everyone knows the answers that no one will discuss. For social security:

* Age of eligibility for Social Security needs to be raised to 70, or higher beginning for everyone currently under, say, 55.

* Benefit payouts levels need to be reduced across the board for everyone under, say, 55.

* Indexing SS benefits to CPI-W is bankrupting the program, and CPI-E (experimental Elderly index) would be even worse. Indexing has to get real: tied to the wage increases of those paying into the system, or offset from CPI-W by some factor that brings the system into solvency.

* Demographics means that we are now entering a period with the Baby Boomers drawing benefits and no longer in the work force and making SS contributions. That's a double whammy - more withdrawals, fewer deposits to the kitty. We're not adding new workers to the workforce fast enough to make up for the retirees, so we should encourage more legal immigration to beef up that workforce.

As I said, it's a 3rd rail: slash retiree benefits, slow the growth of indexing to benefits, and encourage more immigration. Show me a politician or an aspiring politician who's going to say THAT. No wonder Carly just stays mum.

[mawilson 2,133]

As I said, it's a 3rd rail: slash retiree benefits, slow the growth of indexing to benefits, and encourage more immigration. Show me a politician or an aspiring politician who's going to say THAT. No wonder Carly just stays mum.

Any solution that involves a lockbox without a lock will always be insolvent. The Social

Security Trust Fund has over 2 trillion dollars in it; the only problem is, the entire

$2+ trillion consists of US Treasury notes. In other words, the US government "owes itself".

If this sounds like a scam, that's because it is. The official version is that the Trust Fund

"invested" the money in US Treasuries to generate a return. Of course, the investments are

not real. The "lockbox" was supposed to allow Social Security taxes collected in the past

to reduce the need for higher taxes in the future, but the only way the government can ever

repay the bonds held by Social Security is by raising taxes - which defeats the entire purpose

of a lockbox! It's merely an accounting gimmick that keeps track of what has been paid in

versus what has been paid out. In reality, Social Security always has been and always will

be a pay-as-you-go system that pays current retirees from current payments into the system.

[The_Dude 1,142]

She's not answering the question not because she doesn't understand it, nor because she doesn't know the answer to it. She isn't answering because NO ONE who aspires to federal office can dare answer it honestly. You can thank the AARP for that. Entitlement reforms are essential, but political suicide to tackle head on. They are literally the 3rd rail of US politics, and avoided like the plague by both parties.

Everyone knows the answers that no one will discuss. For social security:

* Age of eligibility for Social Security needs to be raised to 70, or higher beginning for everyone currently under, say, 55.

* Benefit payouts levels need to be reduced across the board for everyone under, say, 55.

* Indexing SS benefits to CPI-W is bankrupting the program, and CPI-E (experimental Elderly index) would be even worse. Indexing has to get real: tied to the wage increases of those paying into the system, or offset from CPI-W by some factor that brings the system into solvency.

* Demographics means that we are now entering a period with the Baby Boomers drawing benefits and no longer in the work force and making SS contributions. That's a double whammy - more withdrawals, fewer deposits to the kitty. We're not adding new workers to the workforce fast enough to make up for the retirees, so we should encourage more legal immigration to beef up that workforce.

As I said, it's a 3rd rail: slash retiree benefits, slow the growth of indexing to benefits, and encourage more immigration. Show me a politician or an aspiring politician who's going to say THAT. No wonder Carly just stays mum.

Don't forget about the degenerates who don't pay into social security, but pay into another fund, then choose to pay into social security for 10 quarters to reap the benefits of collecting, but only paying for 2.5 years worth.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace gave Fiorina a chance to lay out her actual plan. Touting her “tough, bottom-line business executive” motto, Wallace pointed out that Fiorina also wants “to extend all, all the Bush tax cuts which would add $4 trillion dollars to the deficit…where are you going to find $4 trillion dollars to cut?” But when Fiorina retreated to recycled response of government waste and an earmarks ban, a frustrated Wallace begged Fiorina seven times to “name one single entitlement expenditure you’re willing to cut” because “that’s where the money is.” Fiorina’s only response? “You’re asking a typical political question”:

such bullshit. I stop reading when the lies are present.

It's not the taxes, it's the spending stupid!

[scandal 951]

Don't forget about the degenerates who don't pay into social security, but pay into another fund, then choose to pay into social security for 10 quarters to reap the benefits of collecting, but only paying for 2.5 years worth.

Eh? You need to contribute a minimum of 40 quarters to collect retirement benefits, and that takes a decade (4 quarters/year) to achieve. Disability benefits can be qualified for sooner, but then you need to be disabled to collect. I'm sure there are scams and abuse, but I don't see how 2.5 years of contributions could lead to that.

[Heracles 417]

SS should be private anyway, with 9% on top of your salary pumped into a retirement account of your choice. How well has it worked in practice, well Aussies do have over $1 trillion in retirement accounts versus the ~$2.3 trillion in SS here. Not to mention they have the largest amounts saved in retirement per capita. Since these funds are private, they cannot be borrowed or touched by any government.

The suggestion that the retirement age be increased to 70 is just ridiculous, considering the life span of so many here.

I did find the higher immigration proposal interesting. Excluding those from the 2nd and 3rd world, which has it's own set of problems that come with them, who do you think is going to migrate here? Apart from Canadians, the US is not exactly #1 on the list for most people from the first world anymore. A number of people from first world countries who do come here for work related reasons, end up leaving. Q.O.L actually matters to those from the first world and is just as important as salary, if not more so. Not to mention, people do not want to have to worry about being another homicide or crime statistic, for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,530]

Why would I support someone who, for example, says they are Christian but has no problem with throwing poor babies off a bridge.

I love how this issue is always brought into politics. "Well, how do you feel about killing babies?"

It's bloody common sense, you need to cut spending on unnecessary spending, like the $1 trillion spent every single year on defense and private contractors.

I'd rather cut unnecessary things like HUD and DHS. Pretty much anything with alphabet soup letters.

Well, all except the DoD.

Entitlement reforms are essential, but political suicide to tackle head on. They are literally the 3rd rail of US politics, and avoided like the plague by both parties.

We have a winner. Instead of cutting things like defense, why don't we cut things like paying people to stay home and have kids?

[Heracles 417]

Slim were you in the navy by any chance?