Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Pangloss]

Sure, PBS could slim up if necessary and they should. But the total wipe out of their funding should not be necessary. The millions we give to them are infinitesimal to our problem. Those that want to fix our budget just need to make some hard choices. Here is a budget calculator from the NY Times. Its not hard to balance the budget. It just takes the political will power to do it. I believe we'll never achieve this until Republicans realize you can't give out tax cuts any more.

Less revenue to the government means higher deficits. Tax cuts have not had long lasting increase in revenue taken in by the government. And if they did Republicans would just spend the money on stupid shit like Reagan's Star Wars Project and military build up or Bush's Medicare Part D and two foreign wars. Republicans have never been fiscally conservative. That last one was Bush senior. But I believe that our only hope lies with them. I hope that some moderate Republican can become President and work with a Democratic Congress to fix things. The Republican party needs to move beyond Reagan and quit echoing the past. They are a victim of their own success.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Sure, PBS could slim up if necessary and they should. But the total wipe out of their funding should not be necessary. The millions we give to them are infinitesimal to our problem. For those that want to fix our budget just need to make some hard choices. Here is a budget calculator from the NY Times. Its not hard to balance the budget. It just takes the political will power to do it. I believe we'll never achieve this until Republicans realize you can't give out tax cuts any more.

Less revenue to the government means higher deficits. Tax cuts have not had long lasting increase in revenue taken in by the government. And if they did Republicans would just spend the money on stupid shit like Reagan's Star Wars Project and military build up or Bush's Medicare Part D and two foreign wars. Republicans have never been fiscally conservative. That last one was Bush senior. But I believe that our only hope lies with them. I hope that some moderate Republican can become President and work with a Democratic Congress to fix things. The Republican party needs to move beyond Reagan and quit echoing the past.

Whoever thought in the early 90's that we'd be looking back fondly upon the legacy of George Bush Sr. He raised taxes, cut defense and got out of Iraq while the getting was good

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'd like, for a moment, to consider the proposition that PBS has actually attracted an intelligent, wealthy clientele that will sustain it regardless of whether or not government funding is cut, brought up by, I believe, ToxicAdam. Is that true? I think that would be a pretty major consideration, as I remember reading during the Juan Williams thing that NPR basically sustains itself sans government funding these days.

 

[sangreal]

as I remember reading during the Juan Williams thing that NPR basically sustains itself sans government funding these days.

That's what the form letter my Senator sent me said:

You will be pleased to know that I have been a strong supporter of public broadcasting. As you may know, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting created National Public Radio (NPR) in 1970 as a news-gathering, production, and program-distribution company governed by its member public radio stations. Public broadcasts have had a long standing history for being sources of quality programming for viewers and listeners of all ages. From educational to news programs, public broadcasting benefits our communities. You may be interested to know that, according to the NPR Foundation, less than 2 percent of NPR's annual budget comes from federal sources and that it relies mostly on program fees and station dues paid by member stations, contributions from sponsors, institutional foundation grants, gifts from donors, and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as I continue to support quality public broadcasting.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'd like, for a moment, to consider the proposition that PBS has actually attracted an intelligent, wealthy clientele that will sustain it regardless of whether or not government funding is cut, brought up by, I believe, ToxicAdam. Is that true? I think that would be a pretty major consideration, as I remember reading during the Juan Williams thing that NPR basically sustains itself sans government funding these days.

http://www.wpsu.org/assets/pdf/onesheets/WPSU-TV_08.pdf

http://www.janson.com/media/2010/12/13/pbs-audience-demographics/


OMG more subsidies for rich, white folk!!

 

[GaimeGuy]

In this thread, Gaborn thinks regressive tax rates are fair.

Gaborn, once you pass the social security wage base, you stop paying money into social security. The more money you make, the lower your social security tax rate goes. Your entire FICA tax rate decreases from 7.65% and approaches 1.45% asymptotically as your income increases.

A truly fair system would have progressive tax rates matched perfectly against the marginal utility of every dollar. But that's not what I'm proposing, I'm simply saying that someone who makes 1 million dollars shouldn't be paying less into social security percentage wise than someone who makes $10k. Or do you disagree?

And yes, i have seen our spending levels. Did you not understand the point of my entire post?

 

[GhaleonQ]

Sesame Street is lame these days, but this is lamer. I am a conservative hypocrite about desiring generous public arts/information funding. I am not someone who panics every time someone proposes specific cuts. Still, there are far better ways to prove you're serious, and the compromise budget they presented still leaves a lot on the table.

I BELIEVE IN YOU, PAUL RYAN.

I'd like, for a moment, to consider the proposition that PBS has actually attracted an intelligent, wealthy clientele that will sustain it regardless of whether or not government funding is cut, brought up by, I believe, ToxicAdam. Is that true? I think that would be a pretty major consideration, as I remember reading during the Juan Williams thing that NPR basically sustains itself sans government funding these days.

Nope. I assume they draw less than the public radio companies, and that "without federal funds" thing is a generous interpretation. Their parent gets a little federal money, their state stations get more state money (i.e., federal money funneled to states), and a ton are paid for by public universities (public money). They get quite a bit, though.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Our renewed focus on fiscal austerity is kind of a double edged sword really. On the positive side of things it will send positive signals to the international market that it is safe to hold assets in dollars. However, this signal in conjunction with the inevitable jacking up of interest rates once consumption starts to take off will combine to once again raise the exchange rate value of the dollar and make us uncompetitive in export markets. This will make our massive trade imbalance with China even worse than it already is. Hopefully however once China becomes more and more comfortable with allowing capital to flow freely in and out of the country more businesses will start to invest there and the CCP will be forced to let the yuan float.

 

[Gaborn]

In this thread, Gaborn thinks regressive tax rates are fair.

Gaborn, once you pass the social security wage base, you stop paying money into social security. The more money you make, the lower your social security tax rate goes. Your entire FICA tax rate decreases from 7.65% and approaches 1.45% asymptotically as your income increases.

And?

A truly fair system would have progressive tax rates matched perfectly against the marginal utility of every dollar. But that's not what I'm proposing, I'm simply saying that someone who makes 1 million dollars shouldn't be paying less into social security percentage wise than someone who makes $10k. Or do you disagree?

And yes, i have seen our spending levels. Did you not understand the point of my entire post?

I don't have a huge objection to a flat rate of payment into social security but again, that won't fix the basic problem. The problem is that, to be frank, people are living longer than social security was designed for. Either tie it to life expectancy or just start raising the retirement age every 10 or 20 years because until and unless you start doing that just finding tax based tweaks won't make it sustainable.

Also, means test it. There is no reason for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc to be eligible for social security benefits.

 

[GaimeGuy]

And?



I don't have a huge objection to a flat rate of payment into social security but again, that won't fix the basic problem. The problem is that, to be frank, people are living longer than social security was designed for. Either tie it to life expectancy or just start raising the retirement age every 10 or 20 years because until and unless you start doing that just finding tax based tweaks won't make it sustainable.

Also, means test it. There is no reason for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc to be eligible for social security benefits.

That is true, and I agree that it should be means tested, and I agree that we will have to raise the retirement age at some point. I just think we should implement these other changes first before we change the retirement age. Make it as good as possible otherwise so that, when the time does come to raise the retirement age, the raise can be kept to a minimum.

 

[Gaborn]

That is true, and I agree that it should be means tested, and I agree that we will have to raise the retirement age at some point. I just think we should implement these other changes first before we change the retirement age. Make it as good as possible otherwise so that, when the time does come to raise the retirement age, the raise can be kept to a minimum.

I think that's ultimately shortsighted. As you say, you're going to be raising the retirement age anyway and that's because it's a built in problem. If you start to solve it by raising taxes there's going to be more pressure and impetus on politicians to keep it solvent by raising taxes - because you know the senior citizens aren't going to LIKE raising the retirement age. Rather than fight that battle constantly - and, frankly, getting it from both sides, take the issue head on and raise the retirement age.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think that's ultimately shortsighted. As you say, you're going to be raising the retirement age anyway and that's because it's a built in problem. If you start to solve it by raising taxes there's going to be more pressure and impetus on politicians to keep it solvent by raising taxes - because you know the senior citizens aren't going to LIKE raising the retirement age. Rather than fight that battle constantly - and, frankly, getting it from both sides, take the issue head on and raise the retirement age.

it's not shortsighted, it's making the least desirable course of action the last course of action.

And the only thing I'm proposing doing is making the wealthy pay as much as the lower and middle classes are paying. While yes, it would be a tax increase relative to the current structure, I think saying my solution is to "raise taxes" is a red herring. I'm simply trying to plug all the other holes in social security before addressing the one that's going to be the most harmful to the most people.