http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/bec...cit/index.htmlLet me give you three numbers that will put this economic asteroid into perspective: $200 billion, $14.1 trillion, and $53 trillion.
$200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis.
$14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy
And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.
While no one will ever mistake me for Alan Greenspan, it seems to me that the third number is quite a bit larger than the other two. It also seems very few people care.
According to the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustees report (and I use that term loosely since it has the word "trust" in it) released earlier this week, the economic asteroid will first make impact in the year 2019 when the Medicaid trust fund becomes insolvent.
Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact.
This is what I want to hear the candidates for president address. I could give a about preachers or slum lords or anything else.
It's not like all $53 trillion is due at once, so this article is misleading....SS issues can be solved by increasing the maximum level of contributions per year, indexing future benefits based on assets, and not spending $3 trillion dollars on use-less wars...
Sweet, so it will take a couple of years to completely bankrupt the country. Well, seeings you put it like that, Obama/Hillary in '08. Let's see if we can bankrupt this country in an even shorter period of timeIt's not like all $53 trillion is due at once, so this article is misleading.
Contributions for what? Or do you mean taxation for SS? Did you not read the article?SS issues can be solved by increasing the maximum level of contributions per year
Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact.
A little more than a couple years, try 2047...that's the year the SS trust fund will be insolvent....Sweet, so it will take a couple of years to completely bankrupt the country. Well, seeings you put it like that, Obama/Hillary in '08. Let's see if we can bankrupt this country in an even shorter period of time
dont forget the 1 trillion you clowns owed china on future bonds hahahahaha
Did you miss the whole 2019 insolvency date for Medicare, or just want to gloss it over in the name of Democraptic "progress"?
Rrright...which is why you posted and replied about these subjects in this very forum.
Allow me to opt out of Social Security PLEASE
It's only a matter of time before the guvment taps their dirty little hands into our rothIRAs.
Book it.
you can drop out of SS now if you join some other state-sponsored retirement plan...for instance, some govt. employees have their own plans...of course, if the government can't meet it's obligations to SS, then these funds likely dry up too, just like your Roth...there's no way to get out of it, all our money, including our savings is tied together in the financial markets...if part of it crashes, it all crashes...
Um, unless you work for the government, you can't opt out of social security. Therein lies the problem. I'd happily opt out and be 'on my own' for retirement, and I'm pretty confident I can do a better job of investing my money properly for retirement than the bull that is social security.
That was just something to do to kill some time while waiting for the meaty topics (like this one) to come out.
No one in D.C. wants to deal with this ing problem, and that pisses me off. And I'm talking both sides of the aisle.
Actually, SS has been a very successful program, but the government doesn't like huge amounts of money sitting around doing nothing......
I'd rather take my chances with the market, and invest my $$ myself, thank you. Thankfully, in my profession, most of us get that chance -- to opt out of SS.
If, on the other hand, you want the gummint to manage your SS and retirement for you, have at it.
...and if you want Bear Sterns and Citibank to manage your money, just like they have managed their own money, more power to you - but there would be no safety net...
Yes. GW tried to deal with it, and that went over like a fart in church. (Of course, I fart in church all the time ... but that's another thread.)
To put it in a very small nuts , the bloated nature of SS, and how the feds have, time after time, raided the fund, is a big reason why the budget is the way it is right now. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but the biggest item in the fed budget, at close to 65%, is en lement programs of all sorts. National defense isn't even close to the amount of money being transferred from rich to poor.
This kind of stinks to those of us who feel that gubmint ought to limit itself, or at least emphasize: (in no particular order) law & order, national defense, homeland security, building roads and sewers, schools, and so on. Instead, they are focused on the redistribution of wealth. And so the gummint has its priorities all screwed up. Government being run this way is one of the big reasons why conservatives reacted to it beginning in the 50's, and have become a viable political force.
The Oreo economy for Republican deniers...
http://www.truemajorityaction.org/oreos/
For Dan and his misinformation campaign.
The $53 Trillion is a Present Value Figure so the figure is much larger in the future, so you're mileading, but we already knew that.It's not like all $53 trillion is due at once, so this article is misleading....
Medicare is what's going to bankrupt the country. That's just goverment run insurance for the old. What's going to happen when the government adds the young to that list?SS issues can be solved by increasing the maximum level of contributions per year, indexing future benefits based on assets, and not spending $3 trillion dollars on use-less wars...
since when is a ponzi scheme considered successful? That government earns less than 1% on that huge amount of money sitting around.Actually, SS has been a very successful program, but the government doesn't like huge amounts of money sitting around doing nothing......
Have you ever heard of diversification? Btw, there are plenty of safety nets, especially better than the one on my SS statement that states SS will be out of money soon.and if you want Bear Sterns and Citibank to manage your money, just like they have managed their own money, more power to you - but there would be no safety net...
I have a great idea! let's end SSN and Mdeicare..We can build shanty towns and the let the old and poor die miserable deaths..!
Sincerely,
Compassionate Conservatives
The average income tax rate will need to go up from 18% to around 30% to make these programs solvent.
It's much easier to shoot the messenger than to think about where $53 trillion is going to come from.
Liberal: Let's just raise taxes on the rich!
The Rich: Oh, were you talking to me? Sorry, I gave up my U.S. citizenship. You're looking at a proud citizen of the UAE now. I don't owe U.S. income taxes. Seriously, the look on your face is priceless. Do you like my new Bentley?
you're so simple minded. The $53 trillion is what we would owe today, but if you confiscated 100% of everyones money, assets, and investments you would still only come up with $50 trillion. Not even a 100% tax on income and assets would pay for your so called compassion.
Do you want to talk solutions or act retarted?
Is this debate a way to deflect from BushCo's irresponsible spending that McCain apparently wants to continue? The GOP have simply refused any fix (unless you want to call their privatization a fix) that would further postpone the 2047 SSN date, and they worsened the health care problem with their Medicare prescription plan to enrich the pharmas. The Democrats' ideas on health care will further worsen the situation.
1. SSN is easy to fix. Just increase the threshold where your income is taxed, and slowly implement a partial, responsible privatization of SSN.
2. Health care is difficult to fix. There is not enough willpower from the people or any party or any industry to truly rein in costs.
Why is healthcare going to bankrupt the US, while national health plans, including in countries where people live longer (there are whole bunch of such countries), are not bankrupting other countries?
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.
Why is the USA struggling so badly, doomsday scenarios, when other countries aren't?
Why does the USA pay almost double the %age of its GDP, and rising to 20% in a few years, in healthcare vs other countries and still not provide healthcare and health insurance for everyone?
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.
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?
McCain surely won't fix . He will offer more of dubya's bull and inaction, while enriching the corps even more, like dubya making it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices down.
So what's your solution, oh Great Aggie Problem Solver?
I'm not sure any politician has the courage to even propose a plan, which will anyway be shot down by the politicians owned by the corps. We already saw that with Hillary's health plan in the 90s, totally independent of it its merit or merit.
ANY serious change, which MUST mandate cost reduction, will be violently opposed by the corps since those very costs are the corps' revenues. Note the politicians talk only about "how to pay" rather that "how to reduce costs".
The basic question is can the USA organize and govern itself for the Greater Good of the people, rather than for Greatest Good of the plutocracy?
I think any health care plan that keeps costs in line will have to include the following unpalatable steps:
1) Customers/patients have little information on who are the best doctors or hospitals or pharmacies. We need a public, online review system like any number of web sites have on products they sell. Of course, they will be a lot of chaff and cruft in such a system, but at least we would have some information and the doctors/hospitals would have an incentive to provide quality service.
2) Customers/patients have little information on what anything costs. We need a public, online system that lists the costs of services of all doctors and hospitals and drugs. When a doctor/hospital recommends any treatment, the patient gets an estimated cost including ALL costs and any change would require patient approval [not required for emergencies, of course]. Patients would then get a single clear estimate in advance rather than 5 impossible to understand accountings after the fact.
3) Insurance shields customers/patients too much from routine costs. Insurance should generally be applied only for medical and financial catastrophes. We need to have high deductables (up to a certain percentage of income), so that the relatively healthy, non-poor majority will, as matter of course, choose low-cost, effective care and make doctors and hospitals and pharmas compete for them. There are a few things that should be covered regardless of the deductable (e.g., vaccines, pregnancy care). Maybe many people will avoid going to the doctor until it's nearly too late, but that is their responsibility.
4) I would implement this first for government health care (from Medicare to our grand and glorious senators and representatives). Of course, all of us would reap the benefits of 1 and 2. I would not favor any national health care until the costs that the government currently covers were under control.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
