http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
Who do you think that individual mandate puts the onus on.
Frankly when Tea Party and GOP conservatives drone on about en lements what do you think they are talking about?
It's obviously not about Medicare coverage the Boomer gravy train. It's about everything else. They cut federal en lements not named Medicare significantly in the 90s. You remember that?
If you're talking about Clinton era welfare reform, that's an across the board cut, including for Boomers. Citing the Contract with America is basically a canard, though. Almost none of that stuff was passed into law. Was a wish list and little more, tbh.
there's something to that, but how is that an en lement cut?
No you aren't.
If their contributions were placed in an interest bearing account, how much would they have with compounding interest?
How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...-earn-interest
More VRWC propaganda to destroy SS, Medicare/Medicaid, esp to get citizens to gamble their SS into for-profit, fee-sucking financial sector.
Bill Black: Robert J. Samuelson tries to create a moral panic about deficits
The Washington Post leads the pack when it comes to generating what scientists term a “moral panic” about budget deficits. As part of that effort they generated the series of myths that Paul Ryan was “serious,” “courageous,” and “expert” about “solving” the “deficit crisis.” The newspaper’s theme is that anyone who doesn’t fall for their effort to create a moral panic is not “serious” and should be ignored. The paper runs a column by Robert J. Samuelson that is devoted to generating a moral panic about the deficit. Like Ryan, his central targets are imposing austerity and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Samuelson’s latest column claims that President Obama and Governor Romney are lying to the nation because they have not sufficiently embraced the moral panic as the transcendent campaign issue that will determine America’s future. Samuelson demands the candidates implore the American people to urgently adopt austerity and attack Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
We have known for over 75 years that the key to recovering from a recession is to follow a counter-cyclical fiscal policy that will reduce unemployment. We have long exhibited the wisdom to adopt automatic stabilizers that increase government services and decrease taxes when a recession strikes.
What would have happened if Obama had adopted austerity as Berlin imposed austerity on the European periphery? It would have prevented any recovery, throwing the U.S. into an even more severe recession. Berlin’s austerity demands have thrown the Eurozone back into a gratuitous recession, increasing the budget deficit in many nations and plunging Greece and Spain into depressions. Europe has followed Samuelson’s and Ryan’s policy advice and the results have been disastrous. Samuelson’s and Ryan’s austerity policies violate economic theory, economic history, and a natural experiment in Europe with austerity that has proved catastrophic. Samuelson, however, makes bizarre odes to Irish austerity, emphasizing the necessity of “persuading ordinary citizens to tolerate austerity (higher unemployment, lower social benefits, [and] heavier taxes) without resorting to paralyzing street protests or ineffectual parliamentary coalitions.”
Samuelson shares Berlin’s belief in the redemptive power of suffering – by others. He doesn’t even feel a need to explain why any rational government would adopt a policy in response to a severe recession which it knew would cause “higher unemployment, lower social benefits, [and] heavier taxes.” He admits that Berlin (and Dublin) knew that austerity would make the recession far more severe. He doesn’t think that adopting austerity programs known to be self-destructive requires justification or even explanation. Insanity is normal in Samuelson’s world.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...=Google+Reader
That must be Hillary's lock box.
I wasn't speaking of paying bond rates. An S&P 500 account average or DOW account would so, and no, it cannot be done for all SS assets. My point is that the government spend it, borrows from future tax payers, and gives the recipients less than if they had invested individually.
50 years from now, people will be asking the same about Obamacare.
For more of the same, vote Obama.
The other party actually wants to reform en lements.
Oh...the Social Security IOU's....
The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.
When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.
Oh...the Social Security IOU's....
The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.
When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.
so you're saying the Feds will default on the bonds held by the SS administration?
Oh...the Social Security IOU's....
The took the money, dumped it into the general fund and spent it. That money is long gone.
When it's time to actually pay those benefits (pay the IOU's) they will have to get it from new revenue. I think it's kind of funny all you liberal young blue teamers will get that bill.
They might in the future...
meh...they will probably just print more and more money and continue to debase the dollar until it has parity with the peso. Actually since Mexico's debt is only 35% of GDP it could go below the peso.
US defaulting on its SS debts. yep, might be in the future, but it wouldn't dare default on debts to the 1%ers and foreigners holding US bonds.
the "other party" shows much lip service but little appe e for cutting en lements. has even engaged in Mediscare tactics against Obama, calling proposed elimination of Medicare Plus overpayments Medicare cuts.
but, we already knew you were a kool aid drinker. you only accept it from Republicans, and you do so uncritically. your belief in the noise coming out of only one side of the GOP's mouth underscores that.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-02-2012 at 10:22 PM.
which party recently passed the biggest increase in social en lements since the Great Society? I'll give you a hint, Darrin: it wasn't the Dems.
See! They re-formed social en lements into something bigger.
dubya/Repugs created Medicare Advantage which costs about 12% MORE to run than non-Advantage. There was also $50B subsidy to for-profit companies to induce them to compete with cheaper govt Medicare.
dubya/Repugs, famed regulation HATERS, MADE A REGULATION to forbid govt from negotiating drug prices with BigPharma, AND forbid reimportation of BigPharma drugs from Canada.
Both of these Repug ups put Medicare/Medicaid unnecessarily further in the hole by many $100Bs, going to $Ts if not cancelled.
oh but they've reformed. they're all real conservatives now, never mind the debt/deficit tango they've been doing for the last 30 years with the Dems.
The GOP brought the debt level to what it was a Obama took over and has played as much a part since 1980 to get us where we are. You act like there is an appreciable difference but that does not change a thing.
The GOP mantra is trickle down as tax cuts as if that is going to change a thing.
If you actually had a notion of how stupid you are how much would you posture as you do?
Hypotheticals are worthless especially when they come from your wishful thinking.
So as Boomers were entering retirement age, cuts to AFDC, WIC, unemployment etc were applicable to them? You should note that the Contract with America didn't do in regards to SS and Medicare the two Boomer gravy trains.
As for the ACA i suppose it's not an en lement cut but it does put the burden on everyone not a boomer as they are retiring from the workforce to pay for their health care. It's the opposite of an en lement. For all intents and purposes it's a tax. Even SCOTUS agrees with me on that.
I am legally required to contribute to their retirement while they leave me with higher tax rates for the rest of my life if I want to be anything resembling responsible.
why do Boomers get blamed for SS deficit? They didn't create SS.
you'll pay for SS whether the boomers live to 106 or 66.
lotsa ing stupid assholes here.
SS is easy to fix
sure thing, mr. RSS.
who manipulated the funding of SS over the past 30 years?
your vrwc keeps getting reelected by whom exactly.
Who came into their majority in 1985?
And of course we will pay for SS but the point is how much we will have to pay. Boomers kept on underfunding it and now they are going to be ~40% of the population drawing on it and not contributing . It's like someone running up a bar tab before you get to the bar and then putting it on you after you get there and continuing to buy them and their buddies drinks on what is now your tab..
Essentially we are going to have to pay for the boomers from 1980 up until they are dead and buried while they haven't paid a goddamn thing from the time they hit their adulthood.
who has made up about a third of the electorate since 1980 although that has waned as of late?
The only stupidity I see is you and your tin hat version of politics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
