Inventing a Crisis

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: NJbronco
In what bank is this trust fund deposited?

Bank of the United States

You mean the United States Dept of Treas.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: NJbronco
The reality is the trust fund does not exist; it is funded with IOU's from the General Budget. When the trust fund is tapped, taxes will have to be raised to pay the benefits.

How can a trust fund that, according to you, does not exist, be, again according to you, tapped?

Isn't your position exactly what Krugman describes as:

"But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest..."

The trust fund is all t-bonds, that when 2018 rolls around will have to start being called in, which means the government will have to use general revenue to pay off the t-bonds.

Once the trustfund is tapped in 2034-2052 the US government will have raise taxes an exorbenent amount to pay the current promised benifits as Social Security will be running $500billion deficet per year by 2071.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[L=?Save Social Security First??
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.
[/quote]

Bullsh1t. No one is denying there is a problem.

The Dems suggested a "Lock Box" not here's the Cookie Jar, all you Rich Boys have at it. :roll:

Thats just not true, dems were the first to propose the private accounts, as well as raising retirement age to 72. But thats besides the point, in order to have so called locked box you have to have raise taxes(not just reverse the Bush tax cut), and cut spending, at THE SAME TIME.

Anyway you slice it to fix social security and medicad you have to raise taxes and cut spending.

Keeping the current Social Security system screws over the next generation plain and simple.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush did help "foster" a crisis by his ridiculous management of the US budget. The natural history of SS (change in demographics) is certainly a trainwreck in evolution. But it could easily be averted by structural changes (increasing eligibility age, means testing eligibility, increasing payroll tax, removing or raising payroll tax). When you look at larger budget concerns, the duplicity of Bushites is obvious.

Merely repealing the tax cuts of the top 1% of US taxpayers alone comes within shouting distance of covering the ENTIRE SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Repealing the Medicare Drug Benefit/Modernization Act is significantly more than the SS shortfall.

Bushoviks have succeeded in ACCELERATING the demise of SS by spending ALL of the SS surplus for EVERY single year Bush has been in office. A phenomenon that has also obscured the true gravity of the fake MBAs poor budgetary skills . . . granted Clinton was a fraud on this issue, too.

In short, the Bush Regime's "public" proposals are largely window dressing on solving the looming fiscal issues in SS. To the contrary, his budgets (just like Reagan) have exacerbated the fiscal problems overall.

This is funny everyone keeps knocking the medicare drug plan, the democrats want one MORE costly. or atleast is wanted one at the time, but now it seems they seemingly forget that and want to bash Bush because its popular.

It also doesnt adress the issue that future generations are screwed. Yes we have a current deficet of $3.7trillion, but paid off over time it equates to $23trillion in general revenue funds. Also on top of that Social Security will be running a $500billion a YEAR defiect in 2071. Everyone talks about oh we could pay off the social security defiect, but in reality it will run a defiect every single year past 2018 that has to be paid by general revenue if we keep the system how it is.

As for raising the age requirements, thats been tried by both democrats and republicans, it doesnt happen because of the AARP.

As for means testing, uh hello socialism. Yes here you pay in XXX% of your money, and never recieve a dime of it back.

Yes we HAVE to pay back all those that paid in, however, future generations shouldnt be stuck with a sytem that just doesnt work. It doesnt work in the long term future.

And its funny how democrats seem to be okay with cutting benifits by 30%. Even more screwing of future generations.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush did help "foster" a crisis by his ridiculous management of the US budget. The natural history of SS (change in demographics) is certainly a trainwreck in evolution. But it could easily be averted by structural changes (increasing eligibility age, means testing eligibility, increasing payroll tax, removing or raising payroll tax). When you look at larger budget concerns, the duplicity of Bushites is obvious.

Merely repealing the tax cuts of the top 1% of US taxpayers alone comes within shouting distance of covering the ENTIRE SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Repealing the Medicare Drug Benefit/Modernization Act is significantly more than the SS shortfall.

Bushoviks have succeeded in ACCELERATING the demise of SS by spending ALL of the SS surplus for EVERY single year Bush has been in office. A phenomenon that has also obscured the true gravity of the fake MBAs poor budgetary skills . . . granted Clinton was a fraud on this issue, too.

In short, the Bush Regime's "public" proposals are largely window dressing on solving the looming fiscal issues in SS. To the contrary, his budgets (just like Reagan) have exacerbated the fiscal problems overall.

This is funny everyone keeps knocking the medicare drug plan, the democrats want one MORE costly. or atleast is wanted one at the time, but now it seems they seemingly forget that and want to bash Bush because its popular.

It also doesnt adress the issue that future generations are screwed. Yes we have a current deficet of $3.7trillion, but paid off over time it equates to $23trillion in general revenue funds. Also on top of that Social Security will be running a $500billion a YEAR defiect in 2071. Everyone talks about oh we could pay off the social security defiect, but in reality it will run a defiect every single year past 2018 that has to be paid by general revenue if we keep the system how it is.

As for raising the age requirements, thats been tried by both democrats and republicans, it doesnt happen because of the AARP.

As for means testing, uh hello socialism. Yes here you pay in XXX% of your money, and never recieve a dime of it back.

Yes we HAVE to pay back all those that paid in, however, future generations shouldnt be stuck with a sytem that just doesnt work. It doesnt work in the long term future.

And its funny how democrats seem to be okay with cutting benifits by 30%. Even more screwing of future generations.

I'm not sure I get your point. How does the lack of "proposed" spending discipline by some Democrats exonerated the "actual" lack of spending discipline by Republicans in Congress and their moron leader at 1600PA? The GOPie response to the rapidly expanding cost of prescription drugs mirrors their idiocy on SS. Drugs are expensive for a variety of reasons but NONE of the causative factors are being addressed. Instead, GOPies decided to guarantee pharmaceutical company largesse while ignoring the fundamental issues underlying expensive Rx medication. I don't bash Bush b/c it's popular. I bash his policies b/c they are simply wrong. It would be one thing if they were simply ineffective. But we don't even have it that good . . . many of his proposals are straight up arse backwards.

Future generations are indeed screwed. I've decided to just resign myself to the fact that GenX and all that follow will pay "coming and going" when it comes to SS. Private savings accounts is tinkering. But the "borrowed" funds to close the gap is PURE debt that will accumulate interest along with other debt accumulated primarily during the reigns of Reagan, Bush41, and Moron43.

I'm not a Democrat but I'm a huge proponent of private savings accounts (as long as it's paid for by current Boomers and older), means testing SS (the very nature of the federal government is the redistribution of wealth between states and individuals . . . it's ridiculous to pull out one example and call it "socialism" while ignoring the others), removing the cap on payroll taxes, making benefits inflation adjusted instead of wage adjusted, and various other fundamental changes to improve revenue influx, reduce costs, and reduce the intergenerational robbery aspect of SS.

But it's total BS to imply Bush is doing anything useful. A balanced budget during Bush's term would have added how much to the longevity of SS? The accumlated debt (and interest) during Bush's first term is the real looming fiscal crisis. Unfortunately, just like his rhetoric on every other issue of substance . . . performance is sorely lacking. Even if the deficit is cut in half from the imaginary $521B to $260B in four years, the TRUE deficit is much higher b/c the budget includes SS surpluses.

So in essence, the strength of SS actual minimizes Bush's wretched fiscal policy yet it's portrayed as the ultimate bogeyman of our financial future?? What a fool! Bush needs to fix the fiscal mess he's CREATED. Once that financial house is in order, all kinds of options would be available.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: NJbronco
The reality is the trust fund does not exist; it is funded with IOU's from the General Budget. When the trust fund is tapped, taxes will have to be raised to pay the benefits.

How can a trust fund that, according to you, does not exist, be, again according to you, tapped?

Isn't your position exactly what Krugman describes as:

"But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest..."

The trust fund is all t-bonds, that when 2018 rolls around will have to start being called in, which means the government will have to use general revenue to pay off the t-bonds.

Once the trustfund is tapped in 2034-2052 the US government will have raise taxes an exorbenent amount to pay the current promised benifits as Social Security will be running $500billion deficet per year by 2071.

The "baby boom" occured from 1946 through 1964. Has anyone stopped to consider that the oldest of the baby boomers will be 108 years old in 2052? And even the youngest of the baby boomers will be 92 years old by then? Has anyone bothered to take life expectancy into account in the Social Security "crisis"?

Where is the crisis when the vast majority of baby boomers will be long gone before it hits???

It's in the minds of Bush and his cronies. They stand to make a fortune off Bush's privatization plans. Bush only wants to get his hands on that hefty $2 trillion Social Security surplus. He's emptied the Treasury. Social Security is the next target. Wake up people. You're about to be had...again.

There is no crisis in Social Security unless the baby boomers' life expectancy increasez by 25 to 30 years in less than half a century. And the odds of that happening are slim to none.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200501140807.asp">?Save Social Security First??
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.
</a>

The latest line of attack against President Bush's still-unformed plan to reform the Social Security system is the charge that the White House is manufacturing a phony Social Security "crisis" to sell its proposal. "The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency," Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote this week. "To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office ? the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security ? he concocted crises where there were none." A number of other commentators, and also some news reporters, have joined in the same theme in recent weeks.


A key document in the controversy, a strategy memo written in early January by White House aide Peter Wehner ? a top assistant to political chief Karl Rove ? does not use the word "crisis," but it does say clearly that Social Security is headed for trouble. "Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg," Wehner writes. "We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."

To some commentators, Wehner's analysis suggested that the White House planned to stir up a phony "crisis." But in fact it appears that President Bush is not only relying on accepted economic wisdom about Social Security's future financial viability but also, in his campaign for reform, borrowing a page from the public-relations playbook of his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending ? or, more importantly, no tax cuts ? "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years ? by 2032 ? "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."

Invented crisis by Bush? Hmm...

CsG

Thanks for the link to that right-wing rag. :roll: Any more garbage you would like to post?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: NJbronco
In what bank is this trust fund deposited?

Bank of the United States

treasury bonds i believe.

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: NJbronco
What 2 positions I am holding? The only position I am holding is that Social Security taxes will have to be constantly raised to cover the retirees.

Can we agree on that?

No, because thats not true.

either people will have to pay more into S.S. and get less, or they are going to have the raise the retirement age or exclude some people. When S.S. was originally designed, there would be 15 workers supporting one retiree. Right now, its 4 workers supporting one retiree, and it's going to get worst now that the baby boomers are starting to retire. Something needs to be done in the near future or it's going to go bankrupt like the rest of the govt

you must not have read the article.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush did help "foster" a crisis by his ridiculous management of the US budget. The natural history of SS (change in demographics) is certainly a trainwreck in evolution. But it could easily be averted by structural changes (increasing eligibility age, means testing eligibility, increasing payroll tax, removing or raising payroll tax). When you look at larger budget concerns, the duplicity of Bushites is obvious.

Merely repealing the tax cuts of the top 1% of US taxpayers alone comes within shouting distance of covering the ENTIRE SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Repealing the Medicare Drug Benefit/Modernization Act is significantly more than the SS shortfall.

Bushoviks have succeeded in ACCELERATING the demise of SS by spending ALL of the SS surplus for EVERY single year Bush has been in office. A phenomenon that has also obscured the true gravity of the fake MBAs poor budgetary skills . . . granted Clinton was a fraud on this issue, too.

In short, the Bush Regime's "public" proposals are largely window dressing on solving the looming fiscal issues in SS. To the contrary, his budgets (just like Reagan) have exacerbated the fiscal problems overall.

This is funny everyone keeps knocking the medicare drug plan, the democrats want one MORE costly. or atleast is wanted one at the time, but now it seems they seemingly forget that and want to bash Bush because its popular.

It gets bashed because it was a complete joke and little more than a corporate handout.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush did help "foster" a crisis by his ridiculous management of the US budget. The natural history of SS (change in demographics) is certainly a trainwreck in evolution. But it could easily be averted by structural changes (increasing eligibility age, means testing eligibility, increasing payroll tax, removing or raising payroll tax). When you look at larger budget concerns, the duplicity of Bushites is obvious.

Merely repealing the tax cuts of the top 1% of US taxpayers alone comes within shouting distance of covering the ENTIRE SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Repealing the Medicare Drug Benefit/Modernization Act is significantly more than the SS shortfall.

Bushoviks have succeeded in ACCELERATING the demise of SS by spending ALL of the SS surplus for EVERY single year Bush has been in office. A phenomenon that has also obscured the true gravity of the fake MBAs poor budgetary skills . . . granted Clinton was a fraud on this issue, too.

In short, the Bush Regime's "public" proposals are largely window dressing on solving the looming fiscal issues in SS. To the contrary, his budgets (just like Reagan) have exacerbated the fiscal problems overall.

This is funny everyone keeps knocking the medicare drug plan, the democrats want one MORE costly. or atleast is wanted one at the time, but now it seems they seemingly forget that and want to bash Bush because its popular.

It gets bashed because it was a complete joke and little more than a corporate handout.

Well then bash it for that and not the financial aspects, democrats can't have both or they are hyp... because the democrat version was much more expensive than even the final tally on the shady Bush one.
We would be worse off fiscally if the democrats had their way on the medicare drug plan.

 

[BBond]

What's Bush going to tell us next? Social Security has WMD???

 

[slyedog]

quoted by vadatajs:

============================================================
What's sad about all of this is how morons like you in the red parts of america are so distracted by the noise you can't see the truth.
==============================================================


wow!!!!!! a man in the know!

 

[Pliablemoose]

SS was intended as a safety net, a lowest standard of living so people that were for some reason unable to save for retirement had a fall back position.

My complaint about it, is that it's now used by many as their only retirement system, by people who should and are financially capable of other retirement savings, it's allowing people to ignore their personal responsibility to plan/save for their own retirement.

Those of you that are younger than 30 should be jumping on this and supporting it, the baby boom is going to suck you dry in payroll taxes.

Honestly, the best argument I've heard is that a percentage of the population affected would incapable of managing their federally sponsored retirement savings accounts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
SS was intended as a safety net, a lowest standard of living so people that were for some reason unable to save for retirement had a fall back position.

My complaint about it, is that it's now used by many as their only retirement system, by people who should and are financially capable of other retirement savings, it's allowing people to ignore their personal responsibility to plan/save for their own retirement.

Those of you that are younger than 30 should be jumping on this and supporting it, the baby boom is going to suck you dry in payroll taxes.

Honestly, the best argument I've heard is that a percentage of the population affected would incapable of managing their federally sponsored retirement savings accounts.

I see your point but what happens to those who aren't responsible enough to manange their own retirement funds or who have lost them due to poor investments? Do we just let them suffer because of it when they get to old to work?