Message boards :
Politics :
USA Bankrupt
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
In fiscal 2011, the cost of the promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion, based on the Wilshire 5000 index, and the value of the equity in U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there is not enough wealth in America to meet those promises. And people try and tell me that Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. If there isn't enough wealth in America to pay it ... remember that is every dime of the 1%'s plus the 99% isn't enough, that is a Ponzi scheme. Never mind how pure it was when enacted, someone, LBJ?, took it and destroyed America with it. When do you expect the Bankruptcy to come? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dirty-secret-in-uncle-sams-friday-trash-dump/2011/12/28/gIQArtWMNP_print.html The dirty secret in Uncle Sam’s Friday trash dump |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
[off topic] Are you aware that a harsher tone is allowed in the Politics forum because of the types of discussions that happen here? So long as the comment isn't "You're a freakin' moron and I hate you!", the Mods typically let a lot of things slide. Having said that, have you actually used the RedX feature to bring posts to their attention? And have you emailed seti _ moderators at ssl.berkeley.edu (remove the spaces to email) to follow up on their decision? |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
In fiscal 2011, the cost of the promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion, based on the Wilshire 5000 index, and the value of the equity in U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there is not enough wealth in America to meet those promises. Source: http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11frusg.pdf Chart on page xv. To further put things into perspective: FY2011 total taxes and other revenues = $2.36 trillion. Yes, this *includes* the payroll (FICA & Medicare) taxes. The National Debt increased by $1.31 trillion in FY 2011. The net present value of the projected Social Security + Medicare payments over the next 75 years increased by $2.97 trillion during FY 2011. The increase in the National Debt + the NPV of 'social insurance' during FY 2011 was, therefore, $4.28 trillion. Just the increase in NPV of social insurance during FY 2011 was greater than the entire amount of all the taxes and other revenues collected by the Federal Govt. in Washington D.C. during FY 2011. When the social insurance NPV increase during FY 2011 is combined with the increase in the national debt during FY 2011, it exceeds the total amount of revenue collected from all sources during FY 2011 by almost $2 trillion. Nope, we can't afford it. And people try and tell me that Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. If there isn't enough wealth in America to pay it ... remember that is every dime of the 1%'s plus the 99% isn't enough, that is a Ponzi scheme. Never mind how pure it was when enacted, someone, LBJ?, took it and destroyed America with it. Social Security was implemented by Public Law 74-271 in 1935. As originally sold to the American people, social security taxes collected from you would be held on reserve by the government and paid back to you upon your retirement in the form of an annuity. For reference, see FDR's message to Congress Jan 17, 1935. ... In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans. ... In 1939, Social Security was amended by Public Law 76-379. This had several changes in it, namely it started benefits 2 years earlier than planned (1940 instead of 1942), it tied a wife's benefits to her husband's, and it started the move to 'pay-as-you-go' and away from annuities. Social Security has been amended at least 45 times since then. So, to answer your question, it wasn't LBJ that 'took it and destroyed America with it', though he did establish Medicare (which will eventually prove much worse of a drain on the US Treasury than the 'retirement). The damage had been done much much earlier. The 'pure form' lasted only about 4 years. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
All I want back is every penny I have paid into it for the last 40 years or so and my employers have paid in on my behalf....... I know, good luck. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Someone else *gets* it... At least I am not the only one to see the hand writing on the wall... https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
I've suggested this before -- one approach to balancing things requires a combination of changes. 1) Privatize Medicare -- that way only the wealthy elderly can afford health care -- saves a lot of money for the government. 2) Eliminate Medicaid -- same premise as above but instead of the elderly, the target uncovered are the poor, very sick, and some of the lower middle class. 3) This is the big one which makes the first two 'work' -- eliminate the requirement of 'duty of care' on health care providers. The pay off here includes the reduction of life span, this will help out the Social Security issue big time. If instead of living to 80 or 85, people die off at 70 or 75, the Federal budget saves 10 years of Social Security payment. Problem solved. -- And it seems something that some folks in the TeaPublican party (or those who fund the TeaPublicans) would generally approve. After all the morality of fiscal balance offsets the morality of duty of care doesn't it?
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
duty of care Is that an inalienable right? I don't remember that being on any list of them I've seen. I could be wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Substantive_rights |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Gary, you are correct according to Wikopedia life is not a basic right. As a source document one can question Wikopedia because of the lack of documentation on sources, but I'll follow you on this one. As Barry stated it is much more cost effective to eliminate those who no longer produce due to age or infirmities. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Where did you get life from duty of care? Actually, never mind, I wouldn't understand it as I don't have any mushrooms handy. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
No of course not, neither is life of course. Currently it is (I believe) required by statute in addition to being required of hospitals which receive Medicare and Medicaid payments. So eliminate the statute support and since Medicare and Medicaid go away the hospitals are no longer compelled to treat accident victims or those without insurance that get very sick. That is what some folks in one of the early Teapublican reality show debates were cheering for. duty of care |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
I didn't go from one to the other. Inalienable rights after all are so 18th century anyway. I guess I draw a distinction between morality and ethics on one side and fiscal self interest on the other. You consume your mushrooms, I'll consume mine <smile> Where did you get life from duty of care? |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
I've suggested this before -- one approach to balancing things requires a combination of changes. BarryAZ, Well, I think that perhaps you might have gone a little... funny in the head on that post of yours... I do not agree with much of your proposed solutions. But, that said, you did hit one valid point: that of life expectancy increases costing social security a LOT of money. Source: http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf Appendix B, Table A1, beginning on page CRS-26. The year that The Social Security Act (H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress) became law, 1935, the average life expectancy of someone born in the USA that year was 61.7 (both genders, all races), yet the retirement age was fixed by that law at 65 years old. (source: http://www.nationalcenter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html). Furthermore, with the exception of an anomalous year in 1918 (Spanish flu, anyone?) of 39.1 years, it had been floating from between the upper 40's to the low 60's since the year 1900. In 2007, the average life expectancy for someone born that year in the USA was 77.9 years, with the retirement age at 67 years. So, we have gone from a program which at inception (1935) didn't start distributing benefits until about 3.3 years after the point when, statistically speaking, half the people born that year would have passed away, to a program where (in 2007) someone born that year would draw benefits for 10.9 years before reaching the halfway point. By and large, the average life expectancy has slowly crept upwards over the course of time from 1900 to the present adding 30.6 years between 1900 and 2007 and 16.2 years between 1935 and 2007, yet the retirement age has been moved only once, only adding 2 years to raise it from 65 to 67 years. In and of itself this suggests a solution. Index retirement age to average life expectancy. Retirement age = average life expectancy for everyone in the USA for the year you were born + 3.3 years (the difference in 1935). This would give a retirement age of 81.2 years for someone born in 2007. But, I know, it would never work.. First, the AARP would have a cow over it and increase the number of Representatives and Senators they have bought and paid for to oppose it. Also all the young kids (teens and twenties) would oppose it since the older people would be working for as much as 11 more years there would be fewer jobs available for the young who are just starting out. In his initial post to the thread, Gary Charpentier correctly pointed out that continuing on in the status quo is unsustainable. There just isn't enough wealth available to transfer. Also, Guy Navarro points out that a financial crash is inevitable, and tells why. I am truly sorry that you got your knickers all knotted up over this, BarryAZ, but truth is truth and facts are facts. You can Hope&Change in one hand, and poop in the other and see which one fills up first. Nobody wants the elderly to all die off... At least nobody sane, that is... But, so much has been promised by the big-government politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington DC that we can no longer pay for all of it. And every day that we continue to try to pay for all of it through deficit spending, we reduce the amount that we can actually afford to pay for due to ever-increasing interest payments. You know, the same problem much of Europe is in right now. We can't close the gap through tax increases. There just isn't enough wealth there to tax. The economy is so shaky right now (and for the foreseeable future) that ANY tax increases would be a Bad Thing(tm). We must cut spending... NOW. On this forum in the past, I advocated an immediate 50% spending cut across the board (only fair way to do it) which at the time would have left about 10% as a surplus to pay down the national debt. But things change. An across the board 55% spending cut would leave us dead even right now (no deficit, but no surplus either). And by this time next year, it will likely be a 60% cut (or worse) to leave us dead even. But, politicians being politicians, nothing is going to get done to fix it. I (and others advocating fixing the problem) am/are about as useful as the dance band on the Titanic playing 'Nearer my God to thee' as the Titanic slid beneath the waves. The crash is inevitable. I mentioned the hand, writing on the wall... Belshazzar's Feast. Danial 5, 1-4... Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin (to Belshazzar) Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting... https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
I didn't go from one to the other. BarryAZ is your name betreger? betreger did. Please follow the threading. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Snip Let's face it....the West is finished. As for Medicare & Medicaid... "Logan's Run" anyone? |
Nick Send message Joined: 11 Oct 11 Posts: 4344 Credit: 3,313,107 RAC: 0 |
What a "HOT" thread this is !!! Clearly joining seti does not mean just looking for alien radio signals, does it? It also means read the threads and become informed on many things going on around you that your not normally/really aware of. What's it all about here then, simply, a prime example of what happens to a nation that's inundated by too much government intervention/control. Nope, your not on your own, the same problem throughout the Western countries and the ECM definitely no exception here. The answer to all this, we need a new way to run ourselves but not involving our politicians in charge with there old ways of doing things. These polititians need to be shunted out from the front line and relegated to the second tier line. We all know that our modern day politicians are in for what they can get out of it when trying to or actually getting into government. This has to stop so all western countries need to be properly run by people who are qualified to do the job, basically the job of business first for that's what all our countries are...they are a business. Running a country as a business, first, forces you to adopt sound business ethics. No sound business in it's right mind would give it's employees a pay rise and do so by covering this extra cost via a bank loan. But our governments do, they offer greater social handouts etc, because it might get them more votes, then cover this cost by increasing the amount of government bonds issued to cover this extra expenditure. That's OK they say for in 30 years time we may be richer and be able to pay off these bonds and in any case it's someone else problem then, the next generations. What happens if in thirty years time if we are not wealthy enough to pay down these old bonds then we have what we have in the west today, financial catastrophe at all our door steps. The Kite Fliers -------------------- Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
MajorKong, as Gary knows from previous Politics boards .. interactions -- what I suggested is not the approach that I would propose -- but rather what I've seen as the gist of suggestions coming from the KochTeaPublican partisans. A curious thing is that this same group of partisans is lambasting 'Obamacare' for its inclination to evaluate cost control approaches to Medicare -- anything that comes from a non Kochite regarding Medicare is either socialism or death panels it seems (a rather curious juxtaposition of false flagging). Clearly there is much heavy lifting to be done regarding health care and social security to come to grips with the demographic reality along with the explosion of high tech very high cost high profit health care system that has developed over the past several decades. There are a number of useful suggestions out there for both of these major problems, but, as you noted, there simply is no political will to get there from here -- ESPECIALLY in the current 'diviseness = good, compromise = bad' environment we are saddled with.
|
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
My apologies, Lord Charpentier, I misread your lambastations.
|
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
And the 'east' isn't that far behind -- China actually has a much more severe demographic time bomb in its relatively near future. [/quote] Let's face it....the West is finished. As for Medicare & Medicaid... "Logan's Run" anyone?[/quote] |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.