What the Leftists think you, as citizens, are

[TwinsenTacquito]

Stop saying leftist, you're just playing into their plan. They say our politicians are left wing, when they clearly aren't. They're not for individual liberties, and democrats make tons of laws restricting rights because of some Christian rule in a book somewhere. They're authoritarians and fascists. Might as well get the lingo right if you're gonna tear them apart.

They do the rightwing v leftwing thing just so people will continue to vote for whatever republican or democrat is popular at the time, even though they have very similar agendas.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Ashley Carson, executive director of the Older Women's League
She also accused Simpson of "disgusting ageism and sexism"

Wut

The whole joker thing is getting old... and childish too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Ocsjmt-rU

 

[heyheybooboo]

$2.8 trillion in deficits in two years??? He has touched more than anyone every else in history put together.

Remember: more deficits now = less ability to pay SS later

Psssst ...

Federal Debt
Last Calendar Year of Bush
$1,436,413,256,379.40

(That's $1.44 Trillion since you are clearly not a math perfesser)

And since you are not a history perfesser, Bush the Worst was handed a $230 billion surplus in the unified budget. Now, tell us 'who touched what'?

And while you are at it, tell us how Bush and the GOPee paid for two wars, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, NCLB, et. al.

Oh. That's right. They didn't.

And what happens when the bills come due, Johnnie?

(Now watch Johnnie spin. Spin, Johnnie. Spin.)

Thanks for playing
Please come again





--

 

[Mursilis]

Psssst ...

Federal Debt
Last Calendar Year of Bush
$1,436,413,256,379.40

(That's $1.44 Trillion since you are clearly not a math perfesser)

And since you are not a history perfesser, Bush the Worst was handed a $230 billion surplus in the unified budget. Now, tell us 'who touched what'?

And while you are at it, tell us how Bush and the GOPee paid for two wars, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way, NCLB, et. al.

Oh. That's right. They didn't.

And what happens when the bills come due, Johnnie?

(Now watch Johnnie spin. Spin, Johnnie. Spin.)

Thanks for playing
Please come again

--

So, you're saying Bush II was a bad president? I'm not going to argue that. And Obama and the Dem Congress have done what exactly to fix the problem?

 

[rudder]

Reagan milked them most, second is GW Bush, third is HW Bush, Clinton actually paid back into them and Obama hasn't touched it yet.

So you are basically complaining about the people you cheer and somehow you can fix that up to make sense in your mind with a little cocain or something?

THINK! It IS required from voters in a democracy.

You know... signing up for a U.S. Government class online might not be a bad idea. Every administration has raped social security. Would you please explain to me how Clinton actually paid back into them and how Obama hasn't touched it yet?

 

[Tom]

Y'all understand Social Security has an enormous surplus, right ?

What Simpson is talking about is that surplus has been spent on other things, that is the "milk cow", not that there's a problem with SS.

Fact is, there's nothing wrong with Social Security, and minor changes in Medicare already implemented have extended it's solvency by 12 years, according to the President.

To really solve Medicare the whole health care system needs to be fixed, otherwise healthcare spending will bankrupt us with or without Medicare and Medicaid.

btw, I used to be a young man so I understand the whole mentality of not wanting to pay taxes for something you aren't using at the moment, would be nice to spend it on a fancier car or a laptop..but that isn't dealing with the reality that we get old or sick and most people don't have the willpower or understanding to deal with that on their own, even though a lot of people think they do.

 

[rudder]

Y'all understand Social Security has an enormous surplus, right ?
Fact is, there's nothing wrong with Social Security,

Wah? In 1953 there were 8 people paying into social security for each person receiving benefits. Currently the ratio is 3 to 1. Within a decade it will be close to 2:1. How can you say there is nothing wrong with social security?

and minor changes in Medicare already implemented have extended it's solvency by 12 years, according to the President.

You know why solvency was increased by 12 years?... the State of Tennessee now has to come up with $400,000,000 more per year to pay for these changes. Yep, costs were shifted to the states.

 

[Tom]

Wah? In 1953 there were 8 people paying into social security for each person receiving benefits. Currently the ratio is 3 to 1. Within a decade it will be close to 2:1. How can you say there is nothing wrong with social security?



You know why solvency was increased by 12 years?... the State of Tennessee now has to come up with $400,000,000 more per year to pay for these changes. Yep, costs were shifted to the states.

On Social Security- people have been paying extra into Social Security for decades to create a surplus for the reason you point out. It isn't based on pay as you go any more so the number of people paying in at a particular time doesn't mean anything, it's just something that sounds scary so it's used to alarm people.

btw, I live in Tennessee and this state doesn't pay it's fair share of the cost of health care. But I'm pretty sure you are talking about Medicaid, not Medicare. It's Medicare that is solvent for an additional 12 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080500643.html

 

[Mursilis]

Y'all understand Social Security has an enormous surplus, right ?

No it doesn't. The whole "Social Security Fund" lie is just an accounting trick. SS contributions are merely part of general revenue, which is basically depleted.

but that isn't dealing with the reality that we get old or sick and most people don't have the willpower or understanding to deal with that on their own, even though a lot of people think they do.

If, as you're saying, most people lack even the basic "willpower or understanding" to do something so simple as just caring for themselves, why are they allowed to vote, if they're such simpletons?

 

[feralkid]

Had breakfast yesterday with some friends that I used to work with. We're all except for one, retired. One of the guys had just gone down to the SS office to get the ball rolling as he's rapidly approaching 62. He said he sat there for an hour or so even though he had an appointment.

He related that he was the only, the only, person in the entire place that appeared to be of retirement age. He said that the place was full of younger people and young families too. He asked about this when his turn came up and the individual he was talking to looked around to see if anyone was within earshot and told him under her breath that that's how it was in there every day. She said that from her vantage point it appeared that everyone was out to bilk the government out of money.

Needless to say I agree with you wholeheartedly. We can meet these problems head on, suffer some pain and hopefully come out better at the end, or we can ignore them in hopes of passing them on to "the next guy" and seal our fate. Our elected officials will choose the latter. Of that I'm certain.

Hey evahbody!

Some friend of Boomerang said some woman said that from her vantage point it appeared that everyone was out to bilk the government out of money.

Gotta believe that's true, it's been Prooooved!

 

[Tom]

No it doesn't. The whole "Social Security Fund" lie is just an accounting trick. SS contributions are merely part of general revenue, which is basically depleted.



If, as you're saying, most people lack even the basic "willpower or understanding" to do something so simple as just caring for themselves, why are they allowed to vote, if they're such simpletons?

It isn't an accounting trick. It will be necessary to come up with funds to pay the bonds which means other government spending may need to be cut, but "conservatives" shouldn't have a problem with that.

Actually the "simpletons" are the people who don't consider human nature and reality and come up with simplistic solutions like doing away with health care and not taking care of the elderly and poor, because at the moment they think it isn't helping them. They are wrong of course, there is an economic benefit even for those who aren't getting the services directly, in terms of economic growth.

 

[SammyJr]

You're just a bunch of tits, hanging off the milk cow that is Social Security.

Welcome to the utopia our socialist friends currently in office want you to love!


"Social Security 'milk cow with 310 million t*ts!'..."

Alan Simpson is a Republican Senator.

 

[SammyJr]

He is essentially saying that SS and other government programs have become the milk cow that the entire country is trying to live off of.

We as a country have to come to the realization that SS and medicare can not survive in their current forms without driving the country into bankruptcy.

Funny how a combination of extremely low taxes on the wealthy, coupled with mass offshoring of living wage manufacturing jobs and knowledge jobs, spread over the past 30 years will do that. People have shit jobs or no jobs and money is concentrating at the top without being taxed. **Gasp** we're broke.

But that was the plan all along. Starve the beast!

 

[rudder]

On Social Security- people have been paying extra into Social Security for decades to create a surplus for the reason you point out. It isn't based on pay as you go any more so the number of people paying in at a particular time doesn't mean anything, it's just something that sounds scary so it's used to alarm people.

btw, I live in Tennessee and this state doesn't pay it's fair share of the cost of health care. But I'm pretty sure you are talking about Medicaid, not Medicare. It's Medicare that is solvent for an additional 12 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080500643.html

There is no SS surplus. Whatever the government takes in for SS it spends on retirees with the leftover getting spent elsewhere. And it is medicare. Changes to the law will add new beneficiaries in Tennessee. The state will pay for these exclusively until 2017.. then costs shift back to the feds for a portion of those new beneficiaries. And the state does pay its fair share. Ever heard of Tenncare? Where do you think 25% of the state's $28 billion budget goes?

 

[rudder]

It isn't an accounting trick. It will be necessary to come up with funds to pay the bonds which means other government spending may need to be cut, but "conservatives" shouldn't have a problem with that.

"Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing." --President Bill Clinton in his Analytical Perspectives section of the 2000 budget.

"It holds no real assets. Consequently, it does not generate funds to pay future benefits. These so-called trust fund 'assets' simply reflect the accumulated sum of funds transferred from Social Security over the years to finance other government operations," June O'Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

There is no surplus... and what you are thinking of is indeed an accounting trick. Sorry to ruin your day.

Unfortunately as we are already taxed up the wazoo and you throw in debt service payments and obamacare obligations.. what more can you tax? and likely we will not be able to borrow more money.

 

[Tom]

There is no SS surplus. Whatever the government takes in for SS it spends on retirees with the leftover getting spent elsewhere. And it is medicare. Changes to the law will add new beneficiaries in Tennessee. The state will pay for these exclusively until 2017.. then costs shift back to the feds for a portion of those new beneficiaries. And the state does pay its fair share. Ever heard of Tenncare? Where do you think 25% of the state's $28 billion budget goes?

Yes I've heard of Tenncare. It is underfunded to the point that many doctors won't accept patients.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/April/08/TennCare.aspx

I'm trying to find an article that describes how Tennessee is going to be paying for Medicare, could you give me a source ?

 

[boomerang]

Hey evahbody!

Some friend of Boomerang said some woman said that from her vantage point it appeared that everyone was out to bilk the government out of money.

Gotta believe that's true, it's been Prooooved!

Don't be stupid - if possible.

 

[Mursilis]

"Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing." --President Bill Clinton in his Analytical Perspectives section of the 2000 budget.

"It holds no real assets. Consequently, it does not generate funds to pay future benefits. These so-called trust fund 'assets' simply reflect the accumulated sum of funds transferred from Social Security over the years to finance other government operations," June O'Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

There is no surplus... and what you are thinking of is indeed an accounting trick. Sorry to ruin your day.

Basically, this.

 

[rudder]

Yes I've heard of Tenncare. It is underfunded to the point that many doctors won't accept patients.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/April/08/TennCare.aspx

I'm trying to find an article that describes how Tennessee is going to be paying for Medicare, could you give me a source ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574414831869954664.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25...aid-costs-for-twenty-eight-states/#more-29800

http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/88792487.html

 

[Tom]

"Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing." --President Bill Clinton in his Analytical Perspectives section of the 2000 budget.

"It holds no real assets. Consequently, it does not generate funds to pay future benefits. These so-called trust fund 'assets' simply reflect the accumulated sum of funds transferred from Social Security over the years to finance other government operations," June O'Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

There is no surplus... and what you are thinking of is indeed an accounting trick. Sorry to ruin your day.

Unfortunately as we are already taxed up the wazoo and you throw in debt service payments and obamacare obligations.. what more can you tax? and likely we will not be able to borrow more money.

The Surplus exists as securities backed by the US government in the same manner as other US issued securities. Failure to repay these securities would have the same effect as failing to pay any other security, ie bankruptcy.

Defining the budget problems as a Social Security problem is the only "trick" that some people try to foist upon the public.

We have a budget problem, not a Social Security problem.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The Surplus exists as securities backed by the US government in the same manner as other US issued securities. Failure to repay these securities would have the same effect as failing to pay any other security, ie bankruptcy.

Defining the budget problems as a Social Security problem is the only "trick" that some people try to foist upon the public.

We have a budget problem, not a Social Security problem.

Our budget problems are overwhelmingly tied to the economy. We can't fund the 'normal' functions of gov't, much less stimulate growth, prop up the financial sector, fight wars, cut taxes, etc., with Federal revenues less than 15% of GDP.

And we can't balance the Federal budget by spending 25% of GDP while propping up the financial sector, fight wars, cut taxes ...

We'll find the equilibrium, but it will be much more difficult (and take twice the time it took in the 1990s) because of a 'poisoned' political environment. And there is no greater poison pill than social security.

Solutions to *______* (insert your own, here) may be reached with compromise and 'statesmanship'. Not a great deal of that going on at the current moment.

You can blame the pols, but you can't really blame the pols. Who wants to be pilloried and pounded for promoting gov't 'service' reductions, and the increase in taxes and fees necessary, to right this ship?





--

 

[rudder]

The Surplus exists as securities backed by the US government in the same manner as other US issued securities. Failure to repay these securities would have the same effect as failing to pay any other security, ie bankruptcy.

Defining the budget problems as a Social Security problem is the only "trick" that some people try to foist upon the public.

We have a budget problem, not a Social Security problem.

The "bonds" issued by the SSA administration are worthless. They represent nothing more than future taxes. Those bonds were issued by the Federal government TO the Federal government.

In a few years, the social security administration will be paying out more than it takes in. Even if the $2.4 trillion of estimated value was available... it would be gone by 2040.

Bernie Madoff is in FPMITAP because of running a similar scam. I pay the government. The government uses that money to pay beneficiaries. They promise me that in the future someone will be paying my benefits. People are living longer after retirement and the ratio of payees to beneficiaries has dropped. Costs are up, income is down. Not good.

anyway.. thread is now off topic and I am sure there are plenty of SS threads found through the search function.

 

[Tom]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574414831869954664.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/25...aid-costs-for-twenty-eight-states/#more-29800

http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/88792487.html

Those all refer to MEDICAID not MEDICARE, which is what I said to begin with. But since you bring it up, as it says in the article I posted about Tenncare, Tenncare has a very low income level to qualify, I would say it's laughable if it wasn't killing people..

The 133% of poverty requirement of the Health care reform bill seems very appropriate to me and won't hurt states that treat their poorer citizens with respect already.

 

[Tom]

The "bonds" issued by the SSA administration are worthless. They represent nothing more than future taxes. Those bonds were issued by the Federal government TO the Federal government.

In a few years, the social security administration will be paying out more than it takes in. Even if the $2.4 trillion of estimated value was available... it would be gone by 2040.

Bernie Madoff is in FPMITAP because of running a similar scam. I pay the government. The government uses that money to pay beneficiaries. They promise me that in the future someone will be paying my benefits. People are living longer after retirement and the ratio of payees to beneficiaries has dropped. Costs are up, income is down. Not good.

anyway.. thread is now off topic and I am sure there are plenty of SS threads found through the search function.

Umm if you want to stop talking that's fine with me, but the proper way to do so is to not post, not post a lot of stuff and then ask me to not respond..

The fund isn't a scam, labeling it as such is just a tactic used by people who don't like Social Security to begin with and want to use the money for their own purposes. The US has never defaulted on it's bonds so claiming it would this time is ludicrous.

The funds may run out in 2040..or in 2085..or never. No one can forecast that far in the future. But very modest changes could move that date very far in the future, there's no reason to talk about Social Security as a difficult problem.

The effect of the Baby Boomers isn't permanent, and our exisitence is the reason why more has been paid in than is going out for decades. The trend that you noted before in the ratio of workers to retirees is also not permanent or set in stone. For instance, rational immigration reform might alter that number in a positive way.

 

[piasabird]

The main purpose of the federal government is the defense of the nation, not welfare. I am all for the Federal Government paying back all of its IOU's that they stole from the Social Security Tax.

First thing we should cut is Chips. The program that pays for children's health care. This is a new program that O'Bammah signed. I have the stinking feeling that our countries problems are closely linked with welfare going to children of non legal residents. So this is what we should cut first. Get rid of all the Anchor Babies. Round up the illegals and send them back or put them in refugee camps/work prisons. We can not even afford to support the legal residents of this country. Then cut all the other social programs like free Gym for Congressmen. Cut Medicare. Cut Medicaide. Cut all of the salaries for government workers who make over $60,000.00. Get rid of all the federal employees added by King O'bammah that have not been approved by congress. Get rid of all the excess baggage we dont need. Cut back on unemployment. Reduce the total number of government workers accross the board. Freeze all budget amounts at their current levels. Start giving more furloughs to federal employees.

King O'bummer said he was going to cut the budget so lets start cutting. If he cant man up then let him resign!