US Government Shutdown Mega-Thread

[Shady]

More money is needed to pay for the global police force.

The defense budget is a lot smaller than entitlements. Even smaller now after Republicans cut defense spending.

[Shady]

It also doesn't help when democrats continue to lower the eligibility for welfare and entitlements as well as open them up to people in the country illegally, and refuse to secure the southern border.

[Shady]

Thankfully in Canada, you're entitled to zero social services if you're in our country illegally.

[GostHacked]

The defense budget is a lot smaller than entitlements. Even smaller now after Republicans cut defense spending.

I think it is just a shuffling of the numbers. Corps do the same thing all the time.

[Shady]

Irony alert! The government shutdown began as an effort to delay Obamacare for one year. Now NBC News is reporting the administration is going to be delaying Obamacare.

Republicans accept your apology.

[August1991]

That belief is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. As I've posted previously, the US "entitlement" system is far less generous than most European states, and they have no issues with paying for them.

Health care is a cost to the nation as a whole. It really doesn't matter how it's paid for, whether through goverment or insurance companies or directly. It is still a vast amount of money going towards health care and not on other needs. The thing to do is to minimize it as best you can while ensuring good quality health care for all. The US system does not do this.

US Social Security and Medicare are arguably more generous than equivalent European State social transfers to retirees. So, I disagree with your argument that the US entitlement system is less generous.

OTOH, the US is a richer country - its people produce more stuff - so American governments can afford to be more generous. Moreover, American government transfers/aid are directed differently. In the US, for example, retired people benefit more and the rich pay more in taxes. European governments rely more on consumption taxes and (some) young people benefit through education subsidies.

But Argus, you make a good general point in your example of health care: it's a cost and someone must bear the burden. But health care is also a benefit. Have you considered the radical idea that people who benefit most should assume the cost? IF Canad adopted such a radical idea, maybe we too would spend alot on health care.

[August1991]

The defense budget is a lot smaller than entitlements. Even smaller now after Republicans cut defense spending.

Make no mistake, the US federal government has a large military. Indeed, the US federal government is a large tank with generous retirement benefits.

Shady, you refer to a "spending problem" but both "tanks" and "retirement benefits" are Red-state, Tea-Party "entitlements". (Sorry for the scare/ironic quotation marks.)

-----

When push the envelope comes to shove, I suspect that it will be the tank that becomes smaller. America will be another Norway or Luxembourg.

Obama? He's no JFK. JFK went to Berlin and said that he was also a West German. JFK said that Americans would bear any burden.

[eyeball]

It's easy to be a "dictator" when an elected Congress supports such things.

We get the governments we ask for.

Who needs a Queen or King !

I don't know, it takes one to catch one?

[Argus]

US Social Security and Medicare are arguably more generous than equivalent European State social transfers to retirees. So, I disagree with your argument that the US entitlement system is less generous.

I'm not sure what basis you're using for saying they're even 'arguably' more generous. How is medicaid more generous than the public health plans in place in France, Germany and the UK, for example?

In the US, for example, retired people benefit more and the rich pay more in taxes. European governments rely more on consumption taxes and (some) young people benefit through education subsidies.

The above ignores the fact the rich consume more and thus pay higher taxes in consumption taxes. It also ignores the fact that dividends and capital gains, the principal form of income for the wealthy, are taxed at much higher rates in Europe than in the US. So I think your belief American rich people pay more taxes is, to put it mildly, based upon a flawed supposition.

But Argus, you make a good general point in your example of health care: it's a cost and someone must bear the burden. But health care is also a benefit. Have you considered the radical idea that people who benefit most should assume the cost?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. As there is no correlation between wealth and sickness this would leave sick people, particularly those with disabled children, say, or suffering from long, lingering diseases, unable to afford to pay for their treatment. What do you do then, push them out onto an ice flow?

Edited October 25, 2013 by Argus

[August1991]

Excuse my thread drift/hijack...

I'm not sure what basis you're using for saying they're even 'arguably' more generous. How is medicaid more generous than the public health plans in place in France, Germany and the UK, for example?

How many elderly people die in France each summer because they live in a State residence without a/c?

The US Social Security monthly payments are remarkable. Argus, compare them to English Canada's base CPP payments with GAINS or OAP.

---

I've seen it all: France, Quebec, Ontario, private, US, Russia, Soviet Union.

My advice to people facing Canada's health system?

1. Family.

2, Contacts.

3. Money.

Edited October 26, 2013 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...How many elderly people die in France each summer because they live in a State residence without a/c?

In 2003, about 15,000:

France heat wave death toll set at 14,802

PARIS (AP) — The death toll in France from August's blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000.

...The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

[Argus]

How many elderly people die in France each summer because they live in a State residence without a/c?

Pretty irrelevent to my question. A/C is not standard in a lot of Europe, where the weather doesn't tend to get as hot and humid as in North America.

You were going to show me how medicaid is more generous than the public health care systems in Europe, remember.

The US Social Security monthly payments are remarkable. Argus, compare them to English Canada's base CPP payments with GAINS or OAP.

Hard to do, but on average SC pays about $1200 a month. That's about $14k a year, roughly. CPP and OAS combined can easily be more than that, but if not there is the GIS on top, which you will get in full unless your income is more than $16,704, so I see nothing particularly remarkable about the social security payments.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Hard to do,...

Not hard to do....somebody at the CBC has already done it:

Sorry, Canada, the U.S. has the better safety net

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sorry-canada-the-u-s-has-the-better-safety-net-1.875482

Edited October 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Not hard to do....somebody at the CBC has already done it:

Sorry, Canada, the U.S. has the better safety net

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sorry-canada-the-u-s-has-the-better-safety-net-1.875482

Though the article is referencing the looming problems associated with the Canadian Pension Plan, a plan designed to ensure that low income Canadians can live off cat-food till death, I still think something along the lines of an Obamacare for Canadians without dental and vision coverage, and as suggested within the article, retirement savings, should be something that we start looking at.

[Wilber]

Not hard to do....somebody at the CBC has already done it:

Sorry, Canada, the U.S. has the better safety net

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sorry-canada-the-u-s-has-the-better-safety-net-1.875482

Does it?

CPP is a well-funded, actuarially sound pension scheme. Polls show that Canadians worry about whether CPP will be there when they retire, but their concern is misplaced: it is the most solid of the retirement options.

It's also more solid than Social Security, in that it's a system where current workers fund their own future retirements, rather than relying on current workers to fund current retirees.

The article points out that the only real problem with it is that it doesn't go far enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does it?

The article points out that the only real problem with it is that it doesn't go far enough.

I didn't write the article, but clearly there is concern. The U.S. entitlement bloat is directly related to budget battles, and higher U.S. payments . I always figured that Canadians accepted less so that all would at least have enough for "cat food", same as with health care rationing.

My spouse and I will have about $45,000 in annual Social Security income alone, far more if we delay retirement (fat chance!).

Edited October 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

My spouse and I will have about $45,000 in annual Social Security income alone, far more if we delay retirement (fat chance!).

Maybe so but a good chunk of that 45 K is money your government will have to borrow. Our CPP is paid for. If we want higher benefits, our contributions will have to go up. That is what the article is about.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe so but a good chunk of that 45 K is money your government will have to borrow. Our CPP is paid for. If we want higher benefits, our contributions will have to go up. That is what the article is about.

No, the U.S. Social Security "trust funds" are viable until about 2032 at current income (payroll taxes and interest) and payments (benefits) levels. Benefits would be reduced to about 75% of current levels after that, still exceeding payments in Canada's CPP.

The U.S. government does not borrow money for Social Security...it spends the trust funds !

Edited October 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe so but a good chunk of that 45 K is money your government will have to borrow. Our CPP is paid for. If we want higher benefits, our contributions will have to go up. That is what the article is about.

Are these figures correct? In March 2013, the average monthly amount for new retirement pension (taken at age 65) was $596.66 and the maximum amount in 2013 is $1,012,50. http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/cpp/retirement/index.shtml

[Smallc]

That's for CPP only. There is also OAS, and for low income people GIS. A retired Canadian gets at minimum from all public and private income sources at least 1300 and change per month.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Smallc

[waldo]

.

Edited October 27, 2013 by waldo

[Guest American Woman]

That's for CPP only. There is also OAS, and for low income people GIS. A retired Canadian gets at minimum from all public and private income sources at least 1300 and change per month.

Thanks for the clarification; the "Our CPP is paid for" comment made it sound to me as if that in itself was comparable to SS.

Edited October 27, 2013 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Thanks for the clarification; the "Our CPP is paid for" comment made it sound to me as if that in itself was comparable to SS.

Yeah, it's a bit confusing. CPP is the portion that workers get. You pay in, and that money is invested. It's fully solvent and funded over a 75 year time frame.

If you'll remember, a couple of years ago, there was a debate in relation to raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. That was in relation to Old Age Security, and not CPP. Old age security is a payment that all seniors who make less than $66K a year get. It's just under $600 (after $66K it starts to be clawed back). That comes out of general revenues. Then there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low income people that either don't have CPP, or don't have enough CPP + OAS + private income to reach the guaranteed income threshold. That also comes from general revenue.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Smallc

[Argus]

Not hard to do....somebody at the CBC has already done it:

Sorry, Canada, the U.S. has the better safety net

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sorry-canada-the-u-s-has-the-better-safety-net-1.875482

What the CBC writer did was basically look at the maximum for social security, which is higher than Canada's maximum, not the average. So if you make a lot of money you will make more from Social Security than you will from Canada's pension plan

The average SC payment is as I stated, about $1200 per month.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/

On average, Canada's is better due to the combination of CPP, OAS and GIS.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Yeah, it's a bit confusing. CPP is the portion that workers get. You pay in, and that money is invested. It's fully solvent and funded over a 75 year time frame.

If you'll remember, a couple of years ago, there was a debate in relation to raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. That was in relation to Old Age Security, and not CPP. Old age security is a payment that all seniors who make less than $66K a year get. It's just under $600 (after $66K it starts to be clawed back). That comes out of general revenues. Then there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low income people that either don't have CPP, or don't have enough CPP + OAS + private income to reach the guaranteed income threshold. That also comes from general revenue.

IMHO they ought to raise the contribution rates, increase the CPP and lower the unfunded portions.

OAS and GIS should really only be for those who haven't worked their whole lives and so haven't contributed to CPP. Deducations should be large enough to supply a reasonable income for CPP contributors by itself, and the current scheme largely is not. Unless you've saved a lot of money you are going to be collecting OAS too.