Reply With Quote
Yeah, it's so successful it's going to be insolvent in our lifetimes.
60 Minutes: Economic Disaster Ahead...
Yeah, it's so successful it's going to be insolvent in our lifetimes.
Typical liberal. Attack the messenger in a lame ass attempt to gloss over the problem.
I know you're an idiot, but $53 trillion isn't scare mongering, it's what our bill is RIGHT NOW.All countries are struggling to manage their retirement/health systems. But the USA seems to be the only one that is not, at least according to the right wing scare mongers.
I would flush every bureaucrat in D.C. and start over, for one thing. No one up there has a ing clue or gives a damn about anyone but themselves and staying in office so they can get more money put in their pockets by lobbyists.What's Aggie's and scare-mongers solution? and can Aggie elect the people to fix it the way he wants it fixed? And is that a real fix?
Well golly gee croutons, I guess we should all just stick our head in the sand and ride this thing to the bottom, that seems to be the politicians' solution (and that of liberal idiots such as yourself).So what's your solution, oh Great Aggie Problem Solver?
What's your solution? And that doesn't mean blame it on Bush or Cheney, let's hear what the liberal wunderchild on the forum has to say about it all.
The fix to this is pretty lengthy and involved, and right now no one in this country has the balls to face it head on (well, not anyone in power, anyway).
Yep, the Health-care industry is ripe with corruption....that's why people's insurance premiums keep going up 3-10%/year.....the insurance companies don't want to help you cause they want to turn a profit, no moral contradiction there, and hospitals and private Doctor's routinely over-charged government programs like Medicare-Medicad because, well, at least they know they'll pay...Because BigPharma, health insurance companies, and all private players in health care are gouging and ripping off the country, having purchased enough politicians to protect the status quo.
Are you saying we shouldn't pay our debts? SS is solvent till 2047, unless the government defaults on it's loans, then you know what happens? The Dollar fails and we all switch to the Euro, the Swiss frank, or the Amero....
Argue against SS if you want. Don't paint it as a liberal program though. Bush did some lawmaking in this regards, didn't he?
I realize this is a specific case, but our work premiums actually went down this year and we got more coverage to boot. Not sure how that worked out, but I agree with you in general, it's bull .
We should pay our debts. Our political leaders need to start working on an alternative plan for the future (like coming up with a plan that slowly phases out SS and lets us all plan our own retirements and withdraw from the SS program.
Just to be clear, I'm just calling out boutons and Dan for being stupid s who don't see any problem with us continuing the status quo until the US of A is freakin' broke.
I admitted voted for Bush twice (in part because the Democratic candidates were even worse) but he has done a suck ass job as president.
Our economy and our nation's financial future is a ing mess at the moment, in part because all Bush did was continue the status quo in D.C.
I'm seriously debating running for office in two years, our country needs some leadership and it isn't getting jack from any of the idiots in D.C.
Of course, my sister is there now (military) and from the stories she tells me anyone with any morals would be the proverbial drop in the ocean there, so I'm not sure how much good it would do anyway.
On second thought, running for office. The better idea may be to move to a different country and renounce my citizenship.
We're headed to a USA where our dollar is worth the equivalent to a peso, and no one in that hole we call our nation's Capitol wants to do about it, just take more money from me and you to hand out to get a couple of votes.
The best thing that could happen to this country would to wipe out Congress and start the over.
In a perfect world, yes, people should have control of their own money, but we don't live in a perfect world, not everyone knows how to invest, what strategies are safer than others, or how to calculate safe rates of appreciation and balanced risk...so there always has to be some social safety net....It would be a perfect world again if we all gave enough to the poor so that this safety net didn't need to exist, but even with all the giving we all do at church and other social organizations, that's still not enough...We should pay our debts. Our political leaders need to start working on an alternative plan for the future (like coming up with a plan that slowly phases out SS and lets us all plan our own retirements and withdraw from the SS program.
This whole idea of saving on health care costs is even self defeating....yes, you saved some on monthly premiums but what did you lose? A safer more reliable provider, less coverage, more deductibles, less choices....really, for the money we all pay, everything should be covered...I realize this is a specific case, but our work premiums actually went down this year and we got more coverage to boot. Not sure how that worked out, but I agree with you in general, it's bull .
And there's our contingency plan, folks.
I just wished we did pay our debts on a
yearly basis. That is you get a tax bill,
just like we get a tax bill on our homes and you had to sit down and write a check for the full amount. And then
maybe some of you bleeding hearts
would learn just what it cost for all these programs. But it will never
happen, never!
No problem for me, just step up and
write the insurance carrier or Uncle
Sugar a check every month for the
true cost for paying for "everything".
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You are consistent about one thing, and that's idiocy.
And notice, once again, how you don't want to talk about Medicare. You just stick your head in the sand and start making accusations. You coward.
Who here thinks that the American people, rather than just pretending the train isn't going off the tracks and proceeding as normal, are going to vote themselves a 70% tax increase? Anyone?
Quitter.
AHF, Argentina awaits you with open arms . . .
I'm there!
I understand the country is beautiful and the food is good.
But what do the women look like? Will they await me with open arms?
Amigo, women here are beautiful . . .
Life expectancy increases roughly 2 years per decade <since 1840> so the retirement age should be increased (I realize that it has over the years, but perhaps not enough). Life expectancy was 70 years in 1967 and 78 years in 2006.
I currently pay 10% into PERS, which is the maximum allowed by law (nothing to SS or Medicare). SS and Medicare take 7.65 percent, with a ceiling of $97,500. What's the problem with raising it to 10% (other than taxpayer revolt)?
Also, the $97,500 ceiling could be raised to parallel the cost of living increases. I think I've heard talk of raising the ceiling to 125 thousand.
Problem's solved. We now have a only a 52 trillion dollar asteroid.
Now let us move on to the next order of business...
Worth commenting on 2centsworth? <if it's not, notify me via PM>
Okay ... but how do they compare with the fine women in Brasil? And will any of them go for a politically conservative evangelical? I do have multiple degrees, but am not rich. Nor am I handsome ... or strong ... or particularly charming ...
Last edited by Don Quixote; 03-29-2008 at 07:48 PM. Reason: and more!
The Bruce Web (has links to all the Trustees Reports & other data).Seems like something about Social Security in the news every month. There seems to be general agreement that SS has a "problem," perhaps it's even in "crisis."
We're told we'll need to start dipping into the Trust Fund in 2017. By 2041 the Trust Fund will be exhausted, & SS won't be able to pay the benefits they promised.
Maybe we won't even have enough money in the general budget to repay the Trust Fund! Both Bush & Cheney have implied as much.
So people argue about solutions. Private accounts? Increase payroll taxes? Lift the cap & get the high earners to pay more? Everyone has their favorite fix, & sometimes the discussions get quite involved - into the minutia of stock returns, management fees, interest on Treasury Bonds, & so on. Gives you the feeling you have to be a financial whiz to understand what's going on.
I'll save you all this trouble. The solution is - do nothing. Absolutely nothing. "Do nothing" is the best solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
"What?" you say. "Doesn't exist? Of course it exists, everyone agrees it exists! They talk about it on TV, in the paper, Dems talk about it, Pugs talk about it - how could it not exist?"
These are Orwellian times. The first thing you should do, when people try to sell you economic predictions, is to check their figures.
In the case of SS, it's easy to do. All the figures under discussion come from one place - the SS Administration's yearly Trustees' report, & they very helpfully post their reports on the web.
Each year the Trustees make 3 forecasts charting the predicted state of SS financing out 75 years into the future. These forecasts are based on assumptions about future population, longevity, productivity, GDP & so on.
There's the "Low-Cost Forecast". This is the best-case scenario - the best they expect the economy to be able to do.
There's the "Intermediate Forecast." This is supposedly what's most LIKELY to happen, & all the numbers you hear in the media come from this forecast.
Finally, there's the "High-Cost Forecast." This is the worst-case scenario; the worst the economy could do.
So, three forecasts, & the intermediate forecast is used for all public pronouncements on SS. This is where the numbers predicting SS shortfall come from.
OK, so what?
Bruce Webb has been monitoring the Trustees' forecasts for 10 years, & he's discovered a startling fact. Nearly every year, the real numbers hit the LOW-COST FORECAST. That's right. Real economic performance most closely matches the Trustees' BEST-CASE scenario.
And what result does the low-cost forecast give us?
Seventy-five years of fully-funded SS plus a Trust Fund surplus in the trillions.
The table on his web page isn't formatted well, so I'll reproduce the essence here: The Trustees' growth forecasts for the next year under the Intermediate & Low-cost assumptions, then the actual percentage growth of that year:
1997
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5%
Low-cost Forecst 3.2%*
Actual 3.8% (+.6 better than low-cost)
1998
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.1*
Actual 3.9 (+.8)
1999
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6
Low-cost Forecst 3.4*
Actual 4.0 (+.6)
2000
Int-Cost Forecst 3.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.9*
Actual 5.1 (+1.2)
2001
Int-Cost Forecst 3.1*
Low-cost Forecst 3.5
Actual 1.0 (-2.0 worse than int-cost)
2002
Int-Cost Forecst .7
Low-cost Forecst 1.6*
Actual 2.4 (+.9)
2003
Int-Cost Forecst 2.9*
Low-cost Forecst 3.8
Actual 3.1 (+.2)
2004
Int-Cost Forecst 4.4*
Low-cost Forecst 4.9
Actual 4.4 ()
2005
Int-Cost Forecst 3.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.9
Actual 3.6 ()
2006
Int-Cost Forecst 3.4
Low-cost Forecst 3.8*
Actual 4.7 (+.4)
2007
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.4
Actual 2.2 (Prelim) (-.4)
Average Int-Cost 2.89
Average Low-cost 3.5*
Average Actual 3.47
There you have it. In 6/11 years, the real numbers come in BETTER THAN the low-cost forecast (the supposedly "optimistic" one).
In 1/11 years, the real numbers come in lower than the optimistic forecast, but better than the intermediate forecast.
In 2/11 years, the real numbers match the intermediate forecast.
In 2/11 years, the real numbers are lower than the intermediate forecast (one of these years being the anomalous year of 9/11).
On average, the real numbers essentially match the optimistic forecast.
This means fully funded SS 75 years out, & trillions of surplus in the Trust Fund.
The implication being, we may be paying TOO MUCH payroll tax.
So forget the private accounts v. increased payroll tax debate. Instead, ask yourself -
Why isn't the media analyzing the Trustees' reports & bringing you this information? Why do all the news accounts discuss the "shortfall" as if it were set-in-stone gospel, certain to occur?
Why don't they even tell you that these are 75-year economic forecasts, & discuss the likely accuracy of 75-year economic forecasts?
Why hasn't anyone in Congress noticed that the Trustees, on average, can't accurately forecast the NEXT year, let alone the next 75? Don't our reps have staffers whose job it is to follow these things? Why aren't they minding our shop? Why do they all seem to take the existence of the "problem" for granted?
I'll tell you what I think. Eleven years of economic data comes in too su iously close to the low-cost forecast. I think the low-cost forecast represents the real forecast, and the intermediate forecast is ratcheted under that to produce the crisis scenario certain actors wish to sell us.
I believe we're being conned, & that some in the media & in Congress know we're being conned.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
