05 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyThat SS would pay out more than it takes in in a period of very high unemployment is neither shocking or unprecedented. If that continues for a long time, it would be a problem, but if our country stays at 10% unemployment for a long period the fact that the SS trust fund is being reduced in value would be a comparatively minor problem next to others.
We will then come up with another word indicating that a fund is losing money rather than making money. How about the term, "Obamarama"?
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs I have said, social security is part of the debt problem for the US which is already a massive abyss. My point here is that it is helping to sink the US and the next step I think would be to lower the bond rating for the US due to its overall debt. Does this concern you or do you even think it a possibility? If so, what are the implications?
Once again whodey, social security cannot go "bust" unless the U.S. government goes bust (it needs to borrow a few dozen trillion dollars more for that to get anywhere close to happening). Social security is - not - a business.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyDebt is caused by all expenses being more than all income. Why are you focusing on only one aspect of expenses instead of the whole picture? It's very odd that you are focusing on one of the most productive expenses of the U.S. government in order to adress its budget problems.
As I have said, social security is part of the debt problem for the US which is already a massive abyss. My point here is that it is helping to sink the US and the next step I think would be to lower the bond rating for the US due to its overall debt. Does this concern you or do you even think it a possibility? If so, what are the implications?
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat is odd is that you don't see the big picture in terms of the overall implications of such a massive debt. Moody's sees the big picture but you apparently do not.
Debt is caused by all expenses being more than all income. Why are you focusing on only one aspect of expenses instead of the whole picture? It's very odd that you are focusing on one of the most productive expenses of the U.S. government in order to adress its budget problems.
As for the most productive expenses, 2/3 of the yearly expenses are from Medicare and defense and interest on the debt. Out of those, which is the most productive? It seems to me that the most productive are defense and Medicare, however, what abuot the interest on the debt? Soon the interest on the debt will bypass all other yearly expenses costing around a trillion/year. It is like flushing a whole years worth of Medicare down the commode.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyLook, I'm all for a balanced budget. But cutting social security is going to damage the economy and isn't going to help balance the budget. Cutting on defense, however, will help.
What is odd is that you don't see the big picture in terms of the overall implications of such a massive debt. Moody's sees the big picture but you apparently do not.
As for the most productive expenses, 2/3 of the yearly expenses are from Medicare and defense and interest on the debt. Out of those, which is the most productive? It seems to me that the ...[text shortened]... around a trillion/year. It is like flushing a whole years worth of Medicare down the commode.
05 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySocial Security by itself is not the threat we should be worrying about.
What is odd is that you don't see the big picture in terms of the overall implications of such a massive debt. Moody's sees the big picture but you apparently do not.
As for the most productive expenses, 2/3 of the yearly expenses are from Medicare and defense and interest on the debt. Out of those, which is the most productive? It seems to me that the ...[text shortened]... around a trillion/year. It is like flushing a whole years worth of Medicare down the commode.
By FAR the biggest long-term threat regarding the debt is the rapidly rising healthcare costs. They are causing programs like Medicare and Medicaid (and Veteran's healthcare) to grow significantly faster than the rest of the budget. This also affects the states because they're responsible for some of the Medicaid spending.
We're going to have to either
1. Find ways to eliminate the wasteful spending from the healthcare system.
2. Cut back on benefits offered by the various government healthcare programs without pulling the plug on grandma.
3. Just accept that healthcare is more expensive than it used to be and raise taxes enough to pay for it.
Any (or all) of these things are going to require politicians to pass bold legislation. BOTH parties are going to have to find a way to work together to find something they can agree on. And populist movements like the Tea Party are going to have to come up with a message that goes beyond "We Are Angry".
05 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSocial Security is more important to the economy that defense? So lets say the US was attacked again like on 9/11. What would happen to the economy then I wonder? In fact, the last I heard the US is due to be attacked again in another 6 months from what we hear in the news.
Look, I'm all for a balanced budget. But cutting social security is going to damage the economy and isn't going to help balance the budget. Cutting on defense, however, will help.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesAlthough I would agree that Medicare is the scariest of the entitlement programs in terms of rising costs, I would say that social security is still the most massive entitlement program to date. In addition, it seems to me that medical care is the most vital of the two. Therefore, if we were faced with scraping on or the other it seems to me that social security should be the one to get the ax. Families will simply have to come together and get through the rough times.
Social Security by itself is not the threat we should be worrying about.
By FAR the biggest long-term threat regarding the debt is the rapidly rising healthcare costs. They are causing programs like Medicare and Medicaid (and Veteran's healthcare) to grow significantly faster than the rest of the budget. This also affects the states because they're res ...[text shortened]... the Tea Party are going to have to come up with a message that goes beyond "We Are Angry".
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo, the Tea party needs to continue to say that they are angry and it will only matter if they are able to effect elections and/or put people into power that will respond to them. That is the ONLY power they have..
Any (or all) of these things are going to require politicians to pass bold legislation. BOTH parties are going to have to find a way to work together to find something they can agree on. And populist movements like the Tea Party are going to have to come up with a message that goes beyond "We Are Angry".[/b]
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyYou want the Tea Party to put people in power who will respond to them. Let's say this happens. The people in power will then ask the Tea Party folk what they WANT. The Tea Party folk will respond that "We are Angry".
No, the Tea party needs to continue to say that they are angry and it will only matter if they are able to effect elections and/or put people into power that will respond to them. That is the ONLY power they have..
So the people in power will get the message. Make sure all speeches are delivered in an Angry Tone of Voice. Make sure you tell them how Angry You Are. Make sure to Wring Hands as Often as Possible.
But they will also know that they don't need to actually make any changes - because the Tea Party never demanded any actual changes.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe relevant goals of the current U.S. military can be achieved with a third of the budget and possibly even less.
Social Security is more important to the economy that defense? So lets say the US was attacked again like on 9/11. What would happen to the economy then I wonder? In fact, the last I heard the US is due to be attacked again in another 6 months from what we hear in the news.
05 Feb 10
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI believe the medical cost issue has to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Although I would agree that Medicare is the scariest of the entitlement programs in terms of rising costs, I would say that social security is still the most massive entitlement program to date. In addition, it seems to me that medical care is the most vital of the two. Therefore, if we were faced with scraping on or the other it seems to me that social sec ...[text shortened]... one to get the ax. Families will simply have to come together and get through the rough times.
But you are very concerned about the solvency of Social Security trust fund. So I would propose we do the same thing that was done in 1983.
Form a committee to consider changes to the Social Security system so that it will be less of a strain on the budget. The committee's recommendations will most likely include a mix of tax increases and benefit reductions and raising the retirement age. Congress would then pass legislation based on what the committee decided.
Of course, back in 1983, the Democrats were willing to pass major legislation even though it would mean that "Reagan would get a victory". And it meant that Reagan and other GOPs were willing to accept a plan that included (gasp!) tax increases. It meant that both sides were willing to pull together to do something to help their country.
If those same reforms had been proposed today, it would have been filibustered and demagogued. Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, et al would all have fulminated against it. Rallies would have been held with pictures of the president next to Hitler and Stalin. And all of Congress's efforts would have ended up being nothing but fodder for the next election campaign.
So whatever your concern is about Social Security. Forget it. Our dysfunctional government is incapable of changing anything. And in case you think the answer is to just "throw the bums out", well there's a whole line of new bums waiting to move in.
05 Feb 10
2 edits
About SS:
Let's make sure that every understands that it's not a retirement program. It is a complicated income redistribution mechanism primarily from workers to the retired. This means that the payroll taxes you put in are not promised to you (with interest) in the future. Your money now goes to old people. Assuming the SS is still in place when you retire, young people will pay for you then. The "trust fund" is actually an accounting mechanism so that the govt can use excess payroll tax revenues, rather than leaving them sitting around earning no return.
The part where people get confused is where they then think that the govt has promised to pay back the borrowed money to SS recipients. In one sense it has, after all the SS admin holds US IOU's. However since the govt really owes itself (remember those payroll tax revenues belong to the govt not the taxpayer), it can always just accept new securities in repayment for old ones. The only way the system gets into trouble is if current workers cannot pay for the benefits of the current retirees AND there are no other tax revenues allocated from other parts of the budget to redeem enough IOU's to make up the short fall.
Could this happen? Well, it could, but it would be very, very unlikely. One of the following would be more likely first:
1) Reduced benefits.
2) Increased qualifying retirement age
3) Raised additional tax revenue from other sources
4) Increased payroll tax
Notice that I'm not saying all this comes without a cost. Shortfalls are shortfalls after all. All of the possibilities above are essentially tradeoff between income now and repayment later. In the end, the winners are the old people that won't be around to suffer the consequences.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat interest rate does the govt pay on the money it borrowed from SS?
BS as usual. In fact, Social Security has $2.3 trillion in assets. It's true these are Treasury IOUs, but that just means the rest of the government owes SS; paying some small amount of that back is hardly a "bailout".
"Stole" is another ridiculous term to use, but such idiocy is consistent on your part. Borrowing from SS revenues to fund ...[text shortened]... government programs is "stealing"; paying back the borrowed funds is a "bailout". 🙄🙄