State of the Union Address

[icanthearyou 4,464]

The message of an "incompetent" federal government is the calling card of the neo liberals.  Privatization of government has proven to be a corrupt, expensive proposition.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Quoting the White House fact sheet.  Solid. Homer, Do you really think that republicans would cut all that stuff and lose all their voters? One proposal I like is privatizing part of ss. If you start that program it will outproduce current insolvent models. So yeah that possibly could be where democrats are saying we are cutting or abolishing it. Would not expect any truth out of Biden and from your “fact” sheet it is obvious.

Nevermind the fact that Biden once proposed getting rid of programs like SS. But, we don't talk about that......

[arein0 977]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If *they* are getting and distributing the money then why will it become insoluble in 2035?  Something is not right and the government hasn’t figured out why or they would have done something by now.  

Here is an interesting article by Brookings about privatization:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/privatizing-social-security-the-troubling-trade-offs/

Interestingly enough this article is from 1997.  Talked about, but nothing done.  The government isn’t the one to come up with something innovative, the private sector is.

To the bold part:  do you expect any private company to do the work for free?  I know you believe the government can do the same without the middle man, but all the government will do is invest in government securities that have a fixed return as they are doing now.  By the way, securities help finance other governmental boondoggles.

To make it work the government will have to pour money into SS to make the present liabilities whole and then rely on workers to increase their contributions to SS going forward.  That would cost a ton of money and probably not feasible, but is a way to *fix* it.

 

Isnt the whole point of reforming something to make it better? You believe that just because something is better for all, it will be passed? I could easily see a situation where the Ds proposed a fix and the Rs shot it down and vice versa because both sides want their name attached as the "creator."

I still dont understand why the government couldnt invest in a US Market Index Fund that is a diversified portfolio of US based companies, distribute the earnings, and keep 1% to help fund other programs, whether increasing salary to government service employees (police, fire, teachers, etc), improving roadways, etc.

Why would you prefer to line few already wealthy individuals pockets when the government could do the same thing and increase revenue?

[I_M4_AU 8,020]

36 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I still dont understand why the government couldnt invest in a US Market Index Fund that is a diversified portfolio of US based companies, distribute the earnings, and keep 1% to help fund other programs, whether increasing salary to government service employees (police, fire, teachers, etc), improving roadways, etc.

The reason is *government* is lousy at handling money.  The reason a lot of blue states are almost bankrupt is because the retirements funds of the police, fire and teachers are all defined benefit and not defined contribution plans.  The reason they have not changed is unions; the unions won’t let them because they believe the government can’t go bankrupt.  It’s great, the union negotiate with the state governments knowing the government won’t take it to a strike and the debt gets bigger.

The blue states got bailed out with the Covid bills passed which increased our deficit and we are still spending.

I would love to have a solution, but we, as a nation, are just too divided at the moment.  I hope the reason we don’t have is not because whose name is on the bill.  If that is the case, a bipartisan sponsorship would help.

[homersapien 11,467]

6 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Nevermind the fact that Biden once proposed getting rid of programs like SS. But, we don't talk about that......

Let's talk about it then.

What was the context?  Did he propose an alternative.  Got references?

[Son of A Tiger 562]

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Let's talk about it then.

What was the context?  Did he propose an alternative.  Got references?

Let’s see….Biden is going after Scott for the exact same thing he proposed in 1975. 
 

Prohibits the authorization of budget authority for a period of more than four years for laws enacted after the effective date of this Act. 

Limits to four years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for a period of more than four years. 

Limits to six years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for an unspecified number of years. 

Requires congressional committees to conduct a comprehensive review and study of existing programs in considering legislation extending budget authority for such programs.

All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again

 

I am sure you will try to make an excuse for Biden. But it’s the same thing. 

[aubiefifty 16,957]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:41 PM, wdefromtx said:

Lying, being disingenuous? I suppose, but I thought Biden was supposed to  be above all that.  

well lets just say he is not donald trump.

[homersapien 11,467]

6 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Let’s see….Biden is going after Scott for the exact same thing he proposed in 1975. 
 

Prohibits the authorization of budget authority for a period of more than four years for laws enacted after the effective date of this Act. 

Limits to four years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for a period of more than four years. 

Limits to six years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for an unspecified number of years. 

Requires congressional committees to conduct a comprehensive review and study of existing programs in considering legislation extending budget authority for such programs.

All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again

 

I am sure you will try to make an excuse for Biden. But it’s the same thing. 

Do you have a link to the original source where you got that?

Edited February 11, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you have a link to the original source where you got that?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/2067

[homersapien 11,467]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/2067

Thanks. 

This proposed legislation would not apply to Social Security, which was passed in 1935.

 

Introduced in Senate (07/09/1975)

Prohibits the authorization of budget authority for a period of more than four years for laws enacted after the effective date of this Act.

 

[creed 1,658]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thanks. 

This proposed legislation would not apply to Social Security, which was passed in 1935.

 

Introduced in Senate (07/09/1975)

Prohibits the authorization of budget authority for a period of more than four years for laws enacted after the effective date of this Act.

 

So you think the following text doesn't apply to Social Security?

Limits to four years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for a period of more than four years.

Limits to six years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for an unspecified number of years.

Requires congressional committees to conduct a comprehensive review and study of existing programs in considering legislation extending budget authority for such programs.

 

The 1975 version of Joe Biden was a budget and spending hawk. So I'm assuming Social Security was up for sunsetting from his perspective. 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by creed

[wdefromtx 3,159]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thanks. 

This proposed legislation would not apply to Social Security, which was passed in 1935.

 

Introduced in Senate (07/09/1975)

Prohibits the authorization of budget authority for a period of more than four years for laws enacted after the effective date of this Act.

 

Nice try…but that’s only saying laws after the date of this bill is subject to that provision. 
 

According to the text, it is subject to the six year maximum. 

[homersapien 11,467]

6 hours ago, creed said:

So you think the following text doesn't apply to Social Security?

Limits to four years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for a period of more than four years.

Limits to six years the budget authorization of existing laws which provide such authorization for an unspecified number of years.

Requires congressional committees to conduct a comprehensive review and study of existing programs in considering legislation extending budget authority for such programs.

 

The 1975 version of Joe Biden was a budget and spending hawk. So I'm assuming Social Security was up for sunsetting from his perspective. 

 

I don't know, it's certainly ambiguous.  But the part I cited seems pretty straighforward.

But I will grant you, some think it would have applied to SS and others don't:

The idea of giving Congress a chance to review automatic federal spending was a popular one in Washington at the time Biden offered his proposal, according to James Dyer, who was a staffer when Biden introduced his bill.

There was “broad-based sentiment” at the time “that Congress had lost control — not so much of discretionary spending” but with mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, said Dyer, the former Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

Dyer noted that Social Security and Medicare are not specifically referenced in Biden’s legislative text but concluded that “after reading it, I believe it would apply to all mandatory” spending programs.  

“Based on my own time in that Congress, I’m assuming what he was doing was trying to get in the game regarding congressional control of mandatory spending because that was the big issue that led to the creation of the Budget Impoundment and Control Act,” he said, citing the landmark bill that established Congress’s modern budget process.  

One Democratic budget expert who requested anonymity to comment on Biden’s bill said it would more likely apply to mandatory than discretionary spending programs, for which Congress provides new funding each year in the annual appropriations bills. That means it would have applied to Social Security and Medicare.

Biden’s bill would have shut off permanent authorizations for programs ranging from Medicare and Social Security to social services block grants, Medicaid and food stamps. 

Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican director of the Senate Budget Committee, said the Biden bill can be open to different interpretations in terms of whether it would apply to Social Security and Medicare because “it is poorly written.” 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3850207-biden-once-offered-budget-bill-strikingly-similar-to-rick-scotts/

 

One thing for sure, it was 48 years ago.

So maybe he changed his mind sometime between then and now. (Or maybe he just forgot. )

 

[homersapien 11,467]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Nice try…but that’s only saying laws after the date of this bill is subject to that provision. 
 

According to the text, it is subject to the six year maximum. 

Exactly.  As I said above, it's ambiguous (poorly written).

Edited February 12, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  As I said above, it's ambiguous (poorly written).

Seems pretty obvious what the text means. Everything is on the table.

Sounds a lot like what Rick Scott planned. 
 

 

[homersapien 11,467]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Seems pretty obvious what the text means. Everything is on the table.

Sounds a lot like what Rick Scott planned. 
 

 

It had contradictory clauses.  That makes it ambiguous. 

But you are free to choose which clause you think is primary, and call it "obvious" if that makes you feel better.

[creed 1,658]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  As I said above, it's ambiguous (poorly written).

I think it’s just good business to review and improve government to meet the needs of the people. Sometime that means making tough changes to reduce funding and sometimes it means augmenting and increasing funding. This type of work is what I would expect our elected employees to be focused on constantly.