We have all known that it was coming for years so it's not news.

I sure hope it is around when it is time to collect.

Well, this is easily fixed.

Increase or eliminate the contribution cap
or
Reinstate a means test for benefits
or both

Basically, it's time to un-fuck what Reagan did.

Wow ... really ....... this is a SHOCK I tell you .... the worlds largest Ponzi Scheme finally is going *poof*?? Who would have thunk it.

Every single President & every single member of the house & senate over the past 40+ yrs should be kicked in the ass until they can taste leather over this. All of the were/are pathetic when it came to SS, it's solvency & they way they used it as a secret cookie jar.

We NEVER ran these kinds of deficits or debt when the Democrats controlled everything.

Reagan started it, Bush 43 finished the job of bankrupting the country.

Place the blame where it belongs: On the GOP

"STARVE THE BEAST" - a PLAN to run up such massive debt the GOP could dismantle social programs

Look it up:

"Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years"

It'll all make sense.

It took both parties and a US public that didn't give a Rats behind.

Funny,

We predicted (that is, my generation) that it would be broke by the time we were eligible to collect benefits from Social Security. For me, it is another 10+ years yet.

Turns out we were right.

BOTH parties are at fault about this mess. Neither one did anything to clean it up.

It isn't Left or Right....it is just about Wrong.

But then, Congress isn't part of the SS system, last I checked. Explains a lot.

Well, this is easily fixed.

Reinstate a means test for benefits
or both

#3 | Posted by snoofy

Oh, so you're going to steal money from those who have contributed for years---in that case let's just take everybody off it.

Just like in a game of monopoly, not everyone will lose. The tsunami is still a way off. Don't be caught watching the water go out. Don't stand there with your cock in one hand and your hat in the other. The other shoe is about to fall.

It's really a shame. Not a bad idea in principle, but when politicians have access to filthy lucre they have an abysmal track record. Everyone's to blame.

Except for me ;)

Perfect timing, now where did all that bailout money go? Why was the bailout more than Iraq, free gasoline & Health Care for everyone for decade?

Just like in a game of monopoly, not everyone will lose. The tsunami is still a way off. Don't be caught watching the water go out. Don't stand there with your cock in one hand and your hat in the other. The other shoe is about to fall.

#11 | Posted by fwthom

SHOE?---how about a closet of shoes.

Bring it home. Quit spending money on war crap.

If memory serves me correctly, this year was $673 Billion?

Ya, we should be able to defend ourselves for a lot less than that.

Increase or eliminate the contribution cap
or
Reinstate a means test for benefits
or both

Basically, it's time to un-fuck what Reagan did.

#3 | Posted by snoofy

Stupid and arrogant is no way to go through life son.

Spread The Wealth.

You idiot!

Supply side economics was a disaster.

Even W's daddy had the common sense to know that

Why do you think we're where we're at?

Clinton 2001 budget - $1.9 Trillion

Bush 2009 budget - $3.52 Trillion

Plus tax cuts led to a MASSIVE national debt, which grew from $5 Billion in 2001 to $12 Trillion in 2009.

BTW, the only Democrat between 1980-2009 added only $600 Billion to the national debt in 8 years.

That's what "Supply Side Economics" get you, EDDIE.

Disaster.

You really need to study up, EDDIE. Your views aren't supported by facts.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-15 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag: VERSE 52

and the beat goes on .......

Same song because it's the REAL song.

You're whistling "La Dee Da" - oblivious to the truth living in your fantasyland of right wing bullshit.

Please commit coitus with yourself.

The Social Security Trust fund has served as a treasure trove of other people's money that benefited the most affluent of Americans. Allow me to explain.

Social Security (payroll tax) is paid by wage earners and matched by business on earned income. Yet this supposed surplus in collected monies has been used for general funding of our nation including the wars and everything else, and including the generous tax cuts for the richest Americans who live off of investment and real estate income. They pay nothing into Social Security as it is not earned income, and they pay the lowest tax rates.

The richest have benefited from the "entitlements" of average Americans and never forget it.

And AU thinks SS is SOLVENT!

VERNON

You prove yourself a right wing moron each and every night. Tell us what about this you don't understand? Clinton left a plan to PAY OFF the national debt. Instead, we pay $700 BILLION a year to service it (principal and interest). Two tax cuts? Nearly $3 TRILLION in added debt. Medicare Part D? $1 Trillion. Iraq? $2 TRILLION.

Get your head out of your ass, VERNON. The truth is the truth, regardless of what lil ol' VERNON thinks it is.

Before you start blabbing about "Democrat Congress", only the House was Democrat all throughout Reagan's Presidency. When the GOP took over in 2001, they had the whole enchilada. So, PLEASE explain why the national debt exploded and how it's the Democrat's fault? YOU CAN'T, moron. I did above. I have FACTS on my side. Your pulling yours out of your ass.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 (Reagan's last)
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 (Reagan's 1st)
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

Regardless of how good Clinton and the Democrats did in the past on debts and deficits, the current crop of Dems fucking suck at it. Obama isn't Clinton. Clinton and his republican congress largely adhered to pay-go rules. Obama and his Dem congress aren't. No amount of bull shit deflections can change that.

MURPHY

If your dumbshit, hypocritical Republicans didn't run massive deficits, creating massive debt we wouldn't have needed to borrow from the SS trust fund - ever.

Clinton left a plan to PAY OFF the national debt and pay back the money to the SS trust fund.

Your idiot heroes blew all our money. Gee, thanks!!

For nothing!!

LIVE OR DIE

Ya, sure ... leave over a TRILLION a year in unfunded liabilities and expect balanced budgets, huh?

Right wingers are batshit crazy.

Right wingers when hearing the truth about where this mess came from:

(while you cover your ears)

"LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yes AU--

We have a party that likes to spend spend spend..

The other party loves to tax and spend spend spend..

HERE, right winger:

AU--you are a liberal by all logic.

And liberalism is a mental disorder..

And how do you figure 9/11 into that "could have paid it off" bullshit!

Right wingers when hearing the truth about where this mess came from:

(while you cover your ears)

"LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 12:20 AM

My point stands. Obama /= Clinton. They aren't making fiscally responsible decisions. If they start at some point I'll give all due credit.

MURPHY

You have a party that embraced a fool's economic policy called "Supply Side Economics" -

we could CUT taxes and increase spending. Began with Reagan, continued with Bush 43. Even Bush's daddy called that "Voodoo Economics". He was right, and it's exactly why we're where we're at.

BTW, Reagan only cut taxes once - in his first year. Just wanted to clear up the myth of the man who started us down this road.

"LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Puts fingers in his ears when singing this...

And with Obama we have trickle up poverty--great!

WE have an economy the GOP pissed all over. Trickle? That hardly covers what they've done.

Well, this is easily fixed.

Reinstate a means test for benefits
or both

#3 | Posted by snoofy

Oh, so you're going to steal money from those who have contributed for years---in that case let's just take everybody off it.

#10 | Posted by matsop

Never was your money... It IS the money of the United States of America. Your contributions were never for you and you have known this your whole life.
It has always been an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the workers to the retirees.

The boomers will effectively kill the program from sheer numbers.

As for taking everybody off.. I am all for it.

Clinton left a plan to PAY OFF the national debt. Instead, we pay $700 BILLION a year to service it (principal and interest). Two tax cuts? Nearly $3 TRILLION in added debt. Medicare Part D? $1 Trillion. Iraq? $2 TRILLION.

Clinton had a plan to PAY OFF the national debt and repay SS.

Before you start blabbing about "Democrat Congress", only the House was Democrat all throughout Reagan's Presidency. When the GOP took over in 2001, they had the whole enchilada. So, PLEASE explain why the national debt exploded and how it's the Democrat's fault? YOU CAN'T. I did above. I have FACTS on my side. Right wingers pull them out of their ass.

"Supply Side Economics" was a disaster. Even Bush's daddy called it "Voodoo Economics". It was. It's cast a spell on right wing idiots too. Facts are facts. Sorry.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 (Bush's last)
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (Clinton's last)
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 (Reagan's last)
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 (Reagan's 1st)
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

At this point it's almost in spam terrority. sheesh

AU--you are a liberal by all logic.

And liberalism is a mental disorder..

#30 | Posted by MURPHY

conservatism is akin to retardation.

conservatism is akin to retardation.

#40 | Posted by Legio

I take exception to that.

#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

You expect surpluses in a recession with OVER a trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and tax cuts left by the previous administration?

More 'Voodoo Economics'.

The Dems are the first in 8 years to have legislation scored by the CBO for deficit neutrality. The first in 8 years to freeze discretionary spending. The GOP were drunken sailors who didn't care one iota about deficits or debt when they had TOTAL power.

Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter". Well, until he wasn't VP anymore, that is.

Why is it so hard to grasp that the GOP left us in this mess, and why in God's name would anyone EVER vote for them again after the shape they left this country in?

Why is it so hard to grasp that the GOP left us in this mess

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 12:36 AM

Nevermind how many times I've said Democrats are better than Republicans on the economy, and that Bush created the mess we're in.
#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-03-16 12:23 AM

Is Woke posting under AU's handle or something?

Oh, so you're going to steal money from those who have contributed for years---in that case let's just take everybody off it.

#10 | Posted by matsop

Never was your money... It IS the money of the United States of America. Your contributions were never for you and you have known this your whole life.
It has always been an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the workers to the retirees.

The boomers will effectively kill the program from sheer numbers.

As for taking everybody off.. I am all for it.

#37 | Posted by Legio

I don't know if that was always the case---over the years the worker/retiree ratio changed considerably and the fund was pillaged--maybe when first formed the funds were still used in the general fund since actuarial tables probably told them at that time that not many people would live long enough to take advantage of the funds.

AU--you are a liberal by all logic.

And liberalism is a mental disorder..

#30 | Posted by MURPHY

WRONG! I'm a moderate. I'm anti-anything to the GOP crowd who left this country in a heap and now hypocritically whine about what THEY created. You right wing FoxNews hounds are out of your fucking minds. THAT's the definition of a mental disorder.

Examine the debt numbers above, take a look at where the national debt was when Reagan TOOK office, and take a look at where Bush 43 LEFT it.

You got fucked and you don't even care. All you do is whine about Democrats who had NOTHING to do with running up the debt to $12 Trillion or creating OVER a TRILLION DOLLARS in UNFUNDED annual liabilities - "Deficits" - (explained for dumbshits).

You expect us to run SURPLUSES now, MURPHY? WTF are you smoking?

Oh, so you're going to steal money from those who have contributed for years---in that case let's just take everybody off it.

Ah yes, the IQ 73 argument that taxes = stealing. Grow up.

The purpose of Social Security is to provide economic security to those who are, at retirement or due to injury or loss, not economically secure. If ever a means test has been justified, this is it.

Headin' to bed. I'll have to check out AU's next misrepresentation of my opinion in the morning. Night!

I guess AU wants to blame repubs for the ratio going from seven workers to one retiree down to one per.

Is Woke posting under AU's handle or something?

#44 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Sure has a similar posting style---was Woke a professional as AU claims?

My point stands. Obama /= Clinton.

Let's hope so. Clinton was getting the debt under control. You call Obama's freeze on discretionary spending ... what?

Scoring legislation by the CBO .. what?

Hey, this guy got handed a big mess. Isn't gonna get cleaned up in 14 months. May take a couple decades - provided we don't have the GOP in control again.

If I misrepresented a post of yours, I apologize, LIVE OR DIE. Didn't mean to.

I guess AU wants to blame repubs for the ratio going from seven workers to one retiree down to one per.

#49 | Posted by crispee_oc

You haven't read anything but what you want to hear.

Clinton left a plan to pay off the debt and shore up SS, but your moron hero frat boy who lived in the WH 2001-2009 and his hypocrite moron cronies in Congress blew that chance sky high.

"You haven't read anything but what you want to hear."

I have read nothing but a fool who thinks this problem happened in the last decade, when everyone knew 30 years ago Social Security was going to be in trouble when baby boomers started to retire.

One of thousands of stories of the same effort by Clinton:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (April 7) -- President Bill Clinton began Tuesday what he hopes will be yearlong conversation on ways to shore up Social Security in the face of an expected onslaught of Baby Boomer retirees over the next 20 years.

At a half-day forum in Kansas City, Mo., Clinton suggested it will take modest changes, not radical surgery, to keep the retirement system solvent into the next century.

"I believe, first of all, we have to reform Social Security in a way that strengthens and protects the guarantee for the 21st century," Clinton said. "We should not abandon a basic program that has been one of the greatest successes in our country's history."

(your hero, Bush, and his GOP cronies have their retirements and could have cared less about deficits OR shoring up SS - they obviously didn't, did they?)

I have read nothing but a fool who thinks this problem happened in the last decade

Well, then, you don't read too much, do you?

SS could have been shored up and the national debt paid off. We could have been running surpluses the last 9 years. But, Bush thought tax cuts for the wealthy, a war in Iraq, and Medicare Part D - leaving over a trillion dollars a year in 'unfunded' (we have to borrow the money) liabilities - were all more important than any of that, didn't he?

That's the record no matter how you care to spin it.

Yes, the GOP and Bush spent and borrowed us into a disaster - costing us our shot at shoring up SS. Can you seriously think we'd have been putting IOU's into the SS Trust Fund if we'd been running surpluses?. Get real.

SS has been bringing in plenty of money - enough, in fact, that if it had remained untouched it would have lasted well into the next century had we not been dropping IOU's in the SS Trust Fund.

I posted Clinton's call (above) - unanswered by the GOP Congress then. Never got discussed once 2001-2009. The GOP spent and borrowed us into the next century instead.

Clinton's last budget: $1.9 Trillion, Bush's last: $3.4 Trillion. Clinton's last deficit: $5.5 Trillion. Bush's last: $12 Trillion. (I posted the Treasury's numbers since 1980 above). There's no denying whom were responsible, but still you're going to point the fingers at the wrong people.

Hell, even now the GOP were against a "Deficit Commission" they were for before Obama took up the idea. He had to issue an Executive Order to create it. The GOP wouldn't even vote for an idea they raised themselves.

Well, then, you don't read too much, do you?
#55 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 01:10 AM

I read the article, can the same be said for you? Here is some of it again and notice how they say YEARS, DECADES in the making.

For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

Social Security's financial problems have been looming for years as the nation's 78 million baby boomers approached retirement age. The oldest are already there. As that huge group of people starts collecting benefits and stops paying payroll taxes Social Security's trust funds will shrink, running out of money by 2037, according to the latest projection from the trustees who oversee the program.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, says the crisis has been years in the making. "If this helps get people to look more seriously at that in the nearer term, that's probably a good thing. But it's only really a punctuation mark on the fact that we have longer-term financial issues that need to be addressed."

Clinton Calls for a Great Debate On Surplus and Social Security
(which drew a yawn from the GOP - my note)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 President Clinton called today for a ''great national debate'' about how to spend the growing Federal budget surplus as he promoted his plans to shore up Social Security and Medicare at the expense of Republican tax cut proposals.

''We have got to work together across party lines to make these decisions,'' Mr. Clinton said even as he warned of the dangers of Republican ideas in a speech here to a powerful lobbying group for the elderly.

As he sketched out his broad goals for strengthening the Medicare system, Mr. Clinton was clearly trying to box in the Republican Congress. He accused Republicans of proposing tax cuts without first addressing the elderly's health care needs.

Mr. Clinton said that before spending any of the surplus, policymakers ''must first tell America's families: 'What is your plan to preserve and strengthen Medicare in the 21st century?' ''

Republicans fired back that Mr. Clinton was offering a false choice between cutting taxes and saving the surplus until popular programs were strengthened.

''We shouldn't make Americans pay higher taxes because the politicians haven't finished their work,'' said Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee.

The aging of the population is increasingly straining both the Medicare and Social Security systems. A bipartisan commission on Medicare is scheduled to report its recommendations by March 1.

Steering clear of any specific proposals for radical overhaul of Medicare, Mr. Clinton reiterated earlier ideas as he presented four guideposts for strengthening the system.

He called for committing 15 percent of surpluses to Medicare, assuring ''a modern, competitive system'' for high-quality care and guaranteeing Americans specific benefits without ''excessive new costs.''

Last, he urged the creation of a prescription drugs program that he said would be financed with savings from changing the system. Mr. Clinton's proposal for that new benefit drew applause from the audience, the national legislative council of the American Association of Retired Persons.

Mr. Clinton repeatedly said he also favored tax relief. But he derided Republican ideas -- what he called ''a rather long series of large and risky tax proposals'' -- as short-sighted.

Saying that it would ''benefit clearly the wealthiest Americans,'' the President criticized a plan put forward on Tuesday by Representative John R. Kasich, Republican of Ohio, to cut income tax rates by 10 percent, at a cost of $743 billion over the next ten years.

Bruce Cuthbertson, a spokesman for Mr. Kasich, said of the surplus: ''We view this as the people's money; it's not our money and the Government's. Mr. Clinton believes just the opposite, that it's the Government's money.''

What part of this is not getting trhough AU??

Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

Clinton Unveils Democratic Plan

Excerpts:

President Clinton stood with congressional Democrats Wednesday and announced that party unity was behind an ambitious legislative agenda.

"We stand today unified," Mr. Clinton said. "We stand today well aware of the challenges before us."

The key points of the 1999 "Families First" agenda follow the goals of the president's State of the Union Address, reports CBS News Senior White House Correspondent Scott Pelley. The plan calls for spending the budget surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare and also raising the minimum wage. (the GOP ultimately didn't get on board - my note).

President Clinton and congressional Democrats hoped to gain a tactical advantage over Republican lawmakers still wrestling with their plans Wednesday. So far, GOP lawmakers have identified goals such as a tax cut, a military pay raise, and reforms to Social Security and education. But they have reached no consensus on how to go about reaching them. (and they didn't - my note).

The president boasted Wednesday that, during his six years in office, the nation has enjoyed its longest peacetime economic expansion, with low unemployment and low inflation.

"What we had before that was more than a decade in which the leaders of the other party talked tough, but took the easy way out," Mr. Clinton said. "We were unashamed about being compassionate, unashamed that we cared about those that needed a hand up in life."

He commended Republicans for agreeing to reserve billions of dollars for fixing Social Security (which they didn't - my note) but said they have not signed on to his proposals for salvaging Medicare. "There are still strong differences in our approach, and we must resolve them in a way that benefits the American people."

Topping the agenda is a bid to set aside 77 percent of projected federal budget surpluses for Social Security and Medicare.

As part of his fiscal 2000 budget plan, Mr. Clinton has proposed setting aside 62 percent ($2.8 trillion) of the expected $4.9 trillion in budget surpluses over the next 15 years to shore up Social Security so it can bear the massive waves of expected baby-boomer retirements. He also wants Medicare to get 15 percent, or $686 billion.

Republicans agree with the notion of preserving 62 percent of surpluses for Social Scurity, but they want to set aside $200 billion more than President Clinton has proposed for that purpose over the next decade. (they didn't - my note)

Tuesday, Republican leaders agreed on a push to allow Social Security funds to be used only to shore up the pension system or bring down the national debt. (which they didn't do when they got the White House, did they? - my note).

U.S. budget surplus swells
Clinton would spend billions for Medicare, Social Security, debt

June 29, 1999|By Jonathan Weisman | Jonathan Weisman,SUN NATIONAL STAFF

WASHINGTON -- Robust economic growth, lower government spending and higher tax revenue will swell the federal budget surplus by a further $20 billion this year and $179 billion over the next five years, according to new White House forecasts that are sure to increase Republican demands for a major tax cut.

But as he unveiled the projections yesterday, President Clinton proposed to lock up the new revenue by pumping more money into Social Security, Medicare, defense and children's programs, while erasing the entire federal debt by 2015.

Tax cuts, Clinton said, should be narrowly tailored to help pay for such items as child care, long-term health care, expenses for stay-at-home-parents, school construction and retirement savings.

"But as he unveiled the projections yesterday, President Clinton proposed to lock up the new revenue by pumping more money into Social Security, Medicare, defense and children's programs, while erasing the entire federal debt by 2015." (I've read with the revenues that actually came in we could have accomplished paying off the debt by last year).

I would raise the limit so 100% of earnings is taxable for SS purposes. I would then use a needs test so the wealthy were not entitled to SS.

March 8, 2005

House Democrats remain as united as their Senate colleagues against Bush's proposal, but some of them came back from meetings with constituents in their districts urging their leadership to begin to develop a Democratic proposal for protecting Social Security. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called for a plan to pay back money taken from Social Security funds but has not outlined how.

Democrats face tough choices developing their Social Security plan. None has yet proposed rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for example. Most serious proposals for keeping the system solvent involve either raising taxes or reducing the growth of benefits, but Democrats have not staked out positions on those either.

July 2006

#24 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 12:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

As I've stated to you many, many times, I do not dispute any factual information you have, you silly twit. And I doubt any of the other Conservatives here would argue the facts; maybe some Republicans but that's different.

But you accomplish nothing, and you contribute nothing, with your posts whining about Reagan, Bush, and GOP Congresses IN THE PAST.

Hey, I understand. Really. Sometimes I take a shot at Carter just for funzies, because he's such a target rich environment. But you aren't doing it for fun; you think you are actually being profound, saying something useful.

Constantly assigning blame may be easy, and make you feel better (in a pathetic 'don't hit me mommy' kind of way). But it does nothing about where to go moving forward.

March 2005

The Congressional Credibility Problem

In my previous article on Social Security "Will Social Security Bankrupt America?", I pointed out that Social Security accounting is done with smoke and mirrors, there is no such thing as a "Trust Fund", and for the reasons discussed in the article the Federal Government may not have the resources to finance future Social Security benefits. Congressional comments, on the other hand, frequently convey the belief that Social Security can be fixed with some minor tweaking. Democrats like Kennedy and Boxer even claim there is no "crisis".

December 2004

was Woke a professional as AU claims?

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2010-03-16 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag

Yeah, but it's like Jackass -- a different 'profession' every week

I would raise the limit so 100% of earnings is taxable for SS purposes. I would then use a needs test so the wealthy were not entitled to SS.

#63 | Posted by jackass at 2010-03-16 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, I'm not wealthy by any means, but even I see that as wrong. How can you justify there being people who pay into the fund and eventually end up never seeing a dime of it (well that will be basically me if things continue)? Isn't that robbery? At least with other taxes I can claim I'm getting some benefit from it, but woah there on that.

Also what is with this annuity guy, every single congress whether republican or democrat has raided social security to supplement the budget. Clinton was a big proponent of this as well despite his rhetoric to help the fund. The problem is that from now on its just going to keep adding to the budget if they don't raise taxes and this has been stated from the get go. I remember a huge deal about this in many papers back in the 90s.

I posted what Clinton and Dems proposed. Now let's see what Bush proposed (and did) once in office rather than paying off the debt and shoring up SS:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2001

President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

(and the Dems were right, Bush was dead wrong, so here we are ..)

Crispee-
When you can get Republicans running for election or re-election to state that they are for the elimination of Social Security, then I might take your position as a serious one.

Until then.....

BTW, $5.6 Trillion was the amount of our national debt at that time. His last budget left it at $12 Trillion with over $1 Trillion of unfunded liabilities (deficits) a YEAR for the next administraton to deal with.

And SS was never shored up either. Nice going GOP.

VERNON

I've been a musician/writer/producer all my life. I don't know what happened to WOKE, nor do I have a clue who he is.

Kiss my ass, fool.

#68 | Posted by crispee_oc

Democrats didn't have a say in anything in 2004.

The GOP did exactly what they wanted, even passing 2 tax cuts for the wealthy (that hadn't been voted on like HCR) before that via reconciliation.

Spin all you want to. The ball lands squarely with the GOP Congress and GOP President no matter how you try to spin it.

$1.9 Trillion budget to $3.4 Trillion budget
Surpluses as far as the eye can see to historical deficits as far as the eye can see - IN EIGHT YEARS - thanks to recklessness the Dems had nothing to do with.

March 8, 2005

House Democrats remain as united as their Senate colleagues against Bush's proposal

#68 | Posted by crispee_oc

Dems didn't take over Congress until 2007. Nothing they proposed would make it past Bush's desk. He never vetoed a single bill while the GOP ran up the debt and squandered our future, but began vetoing bills left and right once the Dems took over Jan. 2007.

re: But you accomplish nothing, and you contribute nothing, with your posts whining about Reagan, Bush, and GOP Congresses IN THE PAST.

Well, one cool accomplishment is watching you freak out over the mere mention of disastrous policies you supported at the time rhetorically, and now don't wish to be reminded of the distant past of, like, last year.

Today, the GOP are against the Deficit Commission.
Hell, the GOP wouldn't vote for it and so Obama had to issue an Executive Order to create the commission.

Let's get real. The GOP never cared about SS or the national debt until they were out of power. They had YEARS to do something. What did they do?
Cut taxes. Their 'one size fits all' 'solution' to everything. Did they pay off the debt?

Did they once address SS or deficits when they were in absolute power? No.

BETLEG

Which has everything to do with why Social Security isn't shored up when it could have been.

We seem to have one political party, Republicans, who are against government in general and govern accordingly. The other political party is afraid to be seen as pro-government.

In short, we're fucked.

Well, one cool accomplishment is watching you freak out over the mere mention of disastrous policies you supported at the time rhetorically, and now don't wish to be reminded of the distant past of, like, last year.

Yea, I had a teacher who every day said, "Washington was the first president". Finally the class said, "We know." The teacher said, "Why do you hate being reminded of the past"?

The teacher's name was boyd.

Anyway, boyd -- please think of a new deflection than the tired, old "you-don't-want-to-be-
reminded-of-the-past". It's well worn and trite -- just like you.

The DR ought to be partitioned into two parts: The ones who want to talk about the present and the future and the ones who want to talk about the past. Whaddya wanna bet the ones who want to talk about the past would be mostly democrats whose only raison d'etre is to deflect to Bush because they can't defend the piece of shit they put into the White House any more?

"Clinton was a big proponent of this as well despite his rhetoric to help the fund."

Well, that's a serious bit of revisionist history.

Clinton was within a few months of true surplus budgets, where the positive numbers wouldn't have been because of the SS overcollections. He spent his 8 years bringing down the debt, whereas Bush merely spent.

And slashed taxes on the wealthiest, let's not forget. And invaded a country which posed no threat. Heckuva job, Georgie Boy!

Gee, Goatman, if you could think of a reason to post that transcended my posts and would not continuously tie yourself in tired knots like your post above, maybe you might have something interesting to say.

Instead, we get tortured petty bullshit like this:

"Yea, I had a teacher who every day said, "Washington was the first president". Finally the class said, "We know." The teacher said, "Why do you hate being reminded of the past"?

The teacher's name was boyd."

Why do you embarrass yourself like that? That's just pathetic, dude.

Every day on DR there are countless "OBAMA"S SPENDING US INTO RUIN!!" posts.

Guess why he has to?

A. Our economy was falling off the cliff Jan 2009

B. He was left with over a Trillion dollars a YEAR as for as far as the eye can see in unfunded tax cuts and liabilities when we could have had surpluses and paid off the national debt and shored up SS.

So, that's a fair deal. The right wing can scream all their idiotic rants - ignoring the whys of where we are now, and I'll keep reminding them we didn't need to be running deficits in the first place had the GOP not acted so idiotically. Fair.

Hey, you guys have a good week. Looks like Spring is on the ascent. Down with Winter! Go Summer!

The DR ought to be partitioned into two parts: The ones who want to talk about the present and the future and the ones who want to talk about the past.

Sounds like someone can't help themselves, and needs rcade to install a killfile for them, lest they be bothered reading posters who refer to last year when it's relevant to the conversation.

What's the matter goatman? PageDown Key broke off?

"???"

"LOL"

Why do you embarrass yourself like that?

LOL As if repeating "Bush's fault" 18 times a day isn't embarrassing. Get a grip.

If being told you are trite and repititive bugs you so much, (and obviously it does) then think of something new to say. Move into the present with the rest of us who are well aware of our history and desire to move on.

Or stay in the past and keep repeating Bush's fault. Your choice

What's the matter goatman? PageDown Key broke off?

No it works. Why do you ask?

???

LOL

The right wing should be glad Washington has frozen discretionary spending and salaries, is addressing the debt (no thanks to the GOP), and about to enact financial reform so the meltdown of 2008 doesn't happen again.

Are they glad? No. They complain about what their own did as though it began last January and would prefer to see the same party who got us in this mess back in power. Insanity. Go figure.

No it works. Why do you ask?

Because you're unable to scroll past posters you don't want to read, hence the dumb idea of splitting drudge into two parts.

Don't want to talk about the past? Use your scroll key and ignore certain people. (which is what you say to nulli whenever he makes a killfile joke, in reference to what a colossal and purposefully obtuse troll you are)

Get it? Or have I earned three question marks from the world's "brightest" oil rig janitor again?

Because you're unable to scroll past posters you don't want to read,

???

Who said I didn't want to read him? If I didn't, I would scroll past his posts like I do for a couple of other posters.

Oh, i see. You are playing the "I-know-your-mind-better-than-
you-do" game. Grow up, alex. That game is as wearisome as boyd's game of assigning positions. And every bit as childish.

Get it? Or have I earned three question marks from the world's "brightest" oil rig janitor again?

Sure, I get it. Your schtick can be seen smelled from miles away. Oh, yes. Oil rig janitor. You are so clever, alex. Where do you come up with this brilliant material? Now excuse me while I go bawl my eyes out. You hurt me to the bone.

LOL

Oh, i see. You are playing the "I-know-your-mind-better-than-
you-do" game.

You're one that stated you wanted drudge carved up into two pieces, much like bob's "two america's" crap.
That screams "I can't control what I read, please get me away from these people different than me"

Being called childish by drudges biggest troll is hilarious, BTW. Too bad the old goatman had to die at spuds hand. His replacement is such a sophistic little dickhead who can only win arguments with Buffalo Bob.

That screams "I can't control what I read, please get me away from these people different than me"

???

It does? So I also suppose that in your mind that someone who wants to seperate the milk from the cream "screams" that he hates dairy products. Or someone who want the newspaper separated into sports, business, and entertainment sections "screams" they want to get away from one facet of the news. Again, more insight into alex's stunningly brilliant mind

Being called childish by drudges biggest troll is hilarious, BTW.

I try to reciprocate, but I still owe you far more laughs than you've provided me. But I'll keep trying. I hate being in debt.

Too bad the old goatman had to die at spuds hand.

???

Yea, whatever. The old, "another-drudgie-slayed-you" comment. Can I play that childish game, too? Too bad Tadowe tore you to shreds with every repartee. Neener, neener, neener.

Grow up, alex

You girls need to quit bitching - it's both the republicans and democrats that screwed us. We need a third option and the only way to get that option is to vote for one.

The more you vote for republicans and democrats, the more you deserve this shit. Vote for _any_ party but these two....

The more you vote for republicans and democrats, the more you deserve this shit. Vote for _any_ party but these two....

That's been a strategy I've used regularly, but usually at national level elections. Maybe one day it'll pay off

#70 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2010-03-16 02:09 AM

Your taxes go toward medicaid and welfare and you aren't using those services. If you want SS so bad give away all your money to someone more deserving and you can collect your share.

Being called childish by drudges biggest troll is hilarious, BTW.

You are right, alex. Calling someone a 'janitor' and 'dickhead' is soooo unchildish. I guess I should have kept it up after I got out of fifth grade. You are the acme of maturity, alex. Are you going to display some more of your adult-like nature by calling me a poopy face?

LOL

Judas.. The whole lot of you are fucking nuts.. The problem started when the program was created. All this left/right bickering is a stupid distraction from the truth (as usual).

The truth is that this is exactly what happens when you charge government with solving problems. It may take 5 years to fail - it may take 75 but the end result is the same. The good news for those who suckle at the governments teet is that they will never allow this die because there are too many dependent on it. They'll raise taxes first, which they'll need to do anyway given the spending in the last decade.

It is truly baffling to me that you dipshits care more about "Clinton did this" and "Reagan did this" than the shitwreck we are in.

Judas.. The whole lot of you are fucking nuts.. The problem started when the program was created. All this left/right bickering is a stupid distraction from the truth (as usual).

The truth is that this is exactly what happens when you charge government with solving problems. It may take 5 years to fail - it may take 75 but the end result is the same. The good news for those who suckle at the governments teet is that they will never allow this die because there are too many dependent on it. They'll raise taxes first, which they'll need to do anyway given the spending in the last decade.

It is truly baffling to me that you dipshits care more about "Clinton did this" and "Reagan did this" than the shitwreck we are in.

Damn, JSP... you said what I was about to post, and probably better than I would have said it. Left vs Right just wastes time and energy that SHOULD be used to solve the problem (how to get the wrinkled old piggies off of the govt teet). I don't expect that is what they will do. Those old fucker vote.

I expect the "fix" will be multi-part:

1) Tax the fuck out of everyone, but tax the rich extra heavy.

2) Tell people who actually save money that they connot collect, even if they paid in

3) Increase the retirement age, so people go back to dying off before they actually get to collect (which was the original design)

Then, once there is more $ in than out, go back to raiding it to pay for whatever wasteful govt programs some asshole can dream up.

How can you justify there being people who pay into the fund and eventually end up never seeing a dime of it (well that will be basically me if things continue)?

Daniel_3 I do get what you're hinting at but no tax will ever be "fair" by those standards.

People without children pay for schools, and people without cars pay for roads, and people with cars pay for public transportation, and people who are pacifists pay for the military. It's just the way it goes.

remove the fucking welfare program ssi and other welfare programs fostered on ss and you might start to fix it.

I blame the GOP too.

Now ... WTF are Democrats going to do about it except more of the same? Ohh thats right ... ram through ANOTHER social entitlement program and tell the public to trust them that the money will be there in 40 years when they need a hip replacement and the treasury is fully of post-it notes.

I am sure this is the definition of insanity.

Social Security?

Both parties have raided that pantry time and time gain in order to pay for other programs and make their numbers look more palatable to the voting public.

That noted, it is the right who raid it more thoroughly and often and want to privatize it and raise the retirement age.

remove the fucking welfare program ssi

~Scumtext

It's a program people pay into, you fucking retard.

It's like if you spent 40 years paying into a retirement account and then found out the government had stolen it from you.

Are you really a completely mindless righty or are you really just a clever lefty pretending to be a braindead RWer in order to make the right look bad?

Either way yer hilarious.

Keep up with the cheap yucks, Chuckles.

Be Well,.

again, it took "R" and "D" and a public that didn't give a rats ass to allow this to happen. we kept sending our crook back to dc as he was stealing for us. with all of them stealing and no one watching out for the county we are screwed. go to a flat 20% for everyone, no deductions and budget must be balanced. if not balanced, no pay for house, senate or pres

If I misrepresented a post of yours, I apologize, LIVE OR DIE. Didn't mean to.

#51 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-16 12:47 AM

Look, you suggest that I think Obama should already have the (Bush's) mess cleaned up; that's not the case. What I do think is that I'm not going to lavish praise on his fiscal policy until I see some results. That may take his entire presidency, which is fine, like I said, I don't expect it to happen within in a year, but my problem is that I'm concerned with what could be a trend of not doing enough to stay within our means.

Like I said, Obama /= (does not equal) Clinton. He couldn't if he tried, the circumstances are totally different. All I opposed in this thread was the idea that because Bush fucked up, and Clinton didn't, that somehow has an impact on how we should look at Obama. Which doesn't make sense.

remove the fucking welfare program ssi and other welfare programs fostered on ss and you might start to fix it.

Yep get rid of disability from SS I mean your blind so what get a job you dead beat, your in a wheelchair tough shit get a job deadbeat. Oh and you take drugs to control your diseases well now we won't hire you cause your high risk, but you can't get SSDI so get a job that no will hire you for, you dead beat.

Oh and for all of you whining that if they change the SS rules it would be like stealing from you.

Acording to current numbers SS will be completley broke in 2037 4 years before I can collect.

At last count I had over 60k put in and it will be broke before I can get it?

Who's stealing from whom?

#108...

Tao,
Any luck viewing your account on line at B of A?

20 years ago I explained this very scenario to our then local congresswoman and all she did was give me the then typical talking points of SS being sound. I asked her what would happen when the demographics finally flip-flopped and more money had to be paid out than what was being colllected and she just blew me off. Well I have unwillingly paid the max each year into SS now for about 20 years and am 62 years old. I am going to be damn PISSED if I can't start drawing on this in about 4 years and so will everyone else that is in my shoes. It will be a virtual civil war if they screw us out of our money after all of these years!

Yeah,

It shows the old information no record of the modification yet. I called and spoke with one of the MHA reps there and they said until it is finilized it will keep showing the old info and I will keep getting these calls until the mod goes into effect. She basicly said to ignore the calls. I told her about his atitude and she apologized. I guess that covers me for now. (I did get her name in case I get more nasty calls or somehow they try and use it against me in the final mod.)

Damn, JSP... you said what I was about to post, and probably better than I would have said it. Left vs Right just wastes time and energy that SHOULD be used to solve the problem (how to get the wrinkled old piggies off of the govt teet). I don't expect that is what they will do. Those old fucker vote.

I expect the "fix" will be multi-part:

1) Tax the fuck out of everyone, but tax the rich extra heavy.

2) Tell people who actually save money that they connot collect, even if they paid in

3) Increase the retirement age, so people go back to dying off before they actually get to collect (which was the original design)

Then, once there is more $ in than out, go back to raiding it to pay for whatever wasteful govt programs some asshole can dream up.

#100 | Posted by 1libertarian

Excellent post and probably very accurate---have you noticed what this country has degenerated into---the reponsible who save and don't play the leverage games and budget and spend responsibly and don't spend beyond their means are going to be the ones that are going to be screwed for their fiscal responsibilty to support all those that were their counterparts---America, the great casino---those who didn't play the game are going to pay for those in the casino---in the casino you have the players who rigged the back of the slots and walked away with millions (a few);---then you have the masses with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths sitting hours at the slots pulling the levers repetitively and mechanically and losing their money and now expecting the non-players, the responsible to save their sorry rearends---of course, the casino owner, the government and various henchmen (investment banksters etal.) will survive.

Doug,

And how will my generation feel to keep paying into the system for you guys then we get screwed? Sadly there are more of you to vote to keep yourselves on the gravy train than there are of us to do anything about it.

20 years ago I explained this very scenario to our then local congresswoman and all she did was give me the then typical talking points of SS being sound. I asked her what would happen when the demographics finally flip-flopped and more money had to be paid out than what was being colllected and she just blew me off. Well I have unwillingly paid the max each year into SS now for about 20 years and am 62 years old. I am going to be damn PISSED if I can't start drawing on this in about 4 years and so will everyone else that is in my shoes. It will be a virtual civil war if they screw us out of our money after all of these years!

#110 | Posted by dougluvsgolf

Right on---and snoop with his lack of ethics says some type of drivel that it really wasn't our money in the first place---where do these people get their intelligence and ethics?

Doug,

And how will my generation feel to keep paying into the system for you guys then we get screwed? Sadly there are more of you to vote to keep yourselves on the gravy train than there are of us to do anything about it.

#113 | Posted by TaoWarrior

They'll probably keep pushing back the years of collection so that actuarially few will ever collect---just the way it was when this lousy program was invented---the original intent was to collect taxes just like they're doing now with the "healhcare reform". It was typical Washington---taxes, figuring people would never live that long in the future to collect---FDR wasn't the lover of the working man as fashionably portrayed by the media.

This is a failure of understanding Humman Nature.

Any time you pass a law requireing somone to buy or invest in somthing, the buyer gets the shaft.

The people who created SS have no incentive to do you right, because they get your money no matter what, it's not your account and never was, and they can do what ever they want with it.

I made my money on Wall Street and did very well, but it there was a law that requred me to give money to WS, my returns would probablly be dismal.

Wall Street is competing for your money SS is not, and the interest I get from SS is negative.

Now the very same people who created SS, want to create another entitlement called health care.

Can't Wait!

902 sounds like a greedy crybaby. He is basically saying he doesn't want to pay for somebody else's health care.

902 sounds like a greedy crybaby. He is basically saying he doesn't want to pay for somebody else's health care.
#117 | Posted by jackass

Sounds like the person he is paying for is the one with the greed.

But I understand Jackass, you are trying to shame someone to pay for your healthcare. It is only natural for you, its what liberals do.

Danforth was saying something to the effect we don't pay enough in SS and medicare taxes. It appears we have, its just been appropriated by the rest of the government ponzi scheme.

They'll probably keep pushing back the years of collection so that actuarially few will ever collect-

Well then I was screwed from the start. Actualy I'll probably be applying for SSDI in a couple years at my current rate of progression anyway. Hey then CBOB can pay for my retirment and health care.

Jackass for all your whining you need to get MS or cancer or hit by a truck or something so you could milk the system they way I'll be able to do.

902 sounds like a greedy crybaby. He is basically saying he doesn't want to pay for somebody else's health care.

Oh what a horrible thing to think! (sarcasm). Whatever little money I have should be mine! I should be able to decide what I do with it since I worked for it. I can and do give money to people that need it, but it should be on my terms, because unlike the federal government, I can actually make sure that those who need it get it. Its much more efficient that way. I can take the taxes I pay now and at least 75% of it could go directly to people that need it, or give it to the govt so that a bunch of politician, lobbyists, and other assholes can get richer while virtually none of it goes to help the right people.

People like you don't deserve handouts because you expect people to give it to you at gunpoint. And if you had money, you probably wouldn't share it anyway because you have a warped view on the world.

I think I deserve my entitlements and so does the current administration. Soon your taxes will go up and I'll be living the good life because of it.

Any time you pass a law requireing somone to buy or invest in somthing, the buyer gets the shaft.

Yes, all those people in every other modern country with mandatory comprehensive health insurance at about half our cost are really getting skewered.

What your truism fails to recognize is the size of the shaft given to the buyer grows in proportion to the profit needs of the seller. We have a for-profit health care regime. Not surprisingly, it requires a higher level of funding than instrumentalities which are not required to collect profits.

Whatever little money I have should be mine! I should be able to decide what I do with it since I worked for it.

Yes, because it was all you. The road you took to work magically appeared and never had to be paid for out of anyone's taxes. The schools that taught you to read just popped up like mushrooms one night, and are staffed my magical fairies who don't even understand this "money" you are so in love with.

You guys fail civilization.

I think I deserve my entitlements and so does the current administration. Soon your taxes will go up and I'll be living the good life because of it.
#121 | Posted by jackass

I guess you don't know. If you qualify for social security and you owe the feds money (college loans), they will deduct what you own them before you get a dime. I bet all this time, you thought you were going to stiff them.

No Ray what I owe gets deducted automatically.

Yes, all those people in every other modern country with mandatory comprehensive health insurance at about half our cost are really getting skewered.

What your truism fails to recognize is the size of the shaft given to the buyer grows in proportion to the profit needs of the seller. We have a for-profit health care regime. Not surprisingly, it requires a higher level of funding than instrumentalities which are not required to collect profits.
---------------
My health care in Texas resonable, and beats inflation, so I'm not experencing the problems you people are crying about.

Go live in Europe or Canada and tell me how much money you save, your cost of living will go through the roof.

Our health care system is not a pure for profit health care system, its just a big kluge so true Free Market princples are not a play.

Sydney Crosby the guy that scored the winning goal in the Gold Medal game plays for the Pitsburg Penguins, because the cost of living in Canada is to expensivie.

Why is the cost of living in Canada so high? Is it military spending, NO is it the cost of wars, NO, their biggest budget item is health care.

What the Government pays for Health Care and what they charge you in taxes is two different beasts.

Our health care system is not a pure for profit health care system, its just a big kluge so true Free Market princples are not a play.

That is entirely true, and I agree it amplifies costs, but health care is simply not a commodity suited to the free market.

People don't wake up one day and decide they want to have a heart attack, then find the hospital with the cheapest ER.

It may seem paradoxical, but health care costs are reduced when care is universally available, because preventative care is orders of magnitude cheaper than fixing something after it's already broke. Or, as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Our system collects profit on the sale of goods ("fee for service") and thus the purveyors of care would rather sell you pounds than ounces.

Ultimately the system is not purposed to deliver better health outcomes, but to deliver profits. That's all the free market knows how to do, and that's why it's a horrible idea to try shoehorn health care into a free market motif. You'll end up with exactly what we have: A system that returns spectacular profit at great cost, but delivers care no better than the rest of the modern world.

Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than we. Take a moment to realize what that says about the glaring inefficiencies (from a health care delivery standpoint) of our system.

#127 | Posted by snoofy
It may seem paradoxical, but health care costs are reduced when care is universally available, because preventative care is orders of magnitude cheaper than fixing something after it's already broke. Or, as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
----------------------
It's an accounting trick, Government Health Care is not going to save you money.

What they claim they are paying for health care is not the true cost, they don't include the cost of the beaurocracy, and when you include that your paying much more.

My mothers side of the family is from Germany, and when they moved here, they said their cost of living droped significantly, and thats after they paid for the own health insurance.

If you look up the word frugle in the dictionary my picture is next to it, so I'm all for saving money, and I've crunched the numbers and my cost of living will go up significantly if this bill or any of the ones that have been proposed by the Democrats.

It's an accounting trick, Government Health Care is not going to save you money.

Yes, I'm sure you're right and the CEO General Motors had no idea what he was talking about five years ago.

"Never was your money... It IS the money of the United States of America. Your contributions were never for you and you have known this your whole life.
It has always been an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the workers to the retirees."

#37 | Posted by Legio

Not exactly true Legio. Since a person has to contribute a certain amount before your eligible to receive benefits and the amount you contribute determines how much in benefits you can receive, I ,we, are entitled to benefits if we met the contribution criteria. So in reality, Legio it is indeed an entitlement. This stands true for disability as well as retirement benefits.

Just clearifing. Any questions?

Snoofy the New England Journal of Medicine is reporting that if Obama Care passes 46% of practicing physicians will leave the profession.

So we will increase the number of insured, and lower the number of doctors

BRILLIANT!

Since 90% of Americans would keep the insurance plan and doctor they have - IF they can afford to keep paying ever rising HC premiums. The bill provides for student loan payoffs of new doctors and nurses who go into general medicine in under served areas. There are way too many specialists.

Right wing sites are reporting numbers all over the map. Got a link there, CAB? BTW, the largest organization representing doctors, the AMA, is firmly for HCR. I've read countless anecdotes from physicians who've seen the patient's care suffer as insurance companies f'ed them over.

WTF. I posted this story on the back page on SUNDAY.

Americanunity wrote,

"We NEVER ran these kinds of deficits or debt when the Democrats controlled everything."

I am confused here, Democrats controlled the house for 40 years, the senate for most of that time and the presidency for some of that time.

Shit don't the democrats deserve some of the credit for fucking things up? Of course they do. Their social programs and there mismanagement have nearly destroyed our great country. Obama is looking to finish the job with the most wasteful and destructive social program ever.

Bullshit. Social Security has been running surpluses and loaning money to the Treasury from the SS Trust Fund to make up for deficits.

The minute W took office, rather than use the projected surpluses to pay back SS, he said we needed tax cuts and other unfunded multi trillion dollar giveaways. We could have had the debt paid off and SS IOU's paid back.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and has always been. The peoples money is stolen by the government and everyone crosses their fingers that they will get paid out of the next generations contributions.

No matter what you say about George Bush Barack Obama is doing 3 to 4 times what George did in deficit spending. So if George is bad Obama is real fucking bad. Lets hear you repeat after me Barack Obama is 3 times as bad as George Bush. There doesn't that feel better.

And you can't get it through your simpleminded head that we wouldn't BE running deficits if not for (all unfunded - i.e. borrowed the money to do these): 2 tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare Part D, Iraq, recession: all adding up to the historical national debt Bush and Co left in their wake that alone costs $700 Billion a year to service.

They had the choice of paying down the debt and paying back SS, but the GOP made a conscience decision not to.

Democrats voted for the tax cuts for all americans, medicard part d, iraq, etc. The fact is democrats took control of both houses of congress when the economy was doing fine. What stopped them from reigning in the spending during the last 2 years of mean old george bush's presidency. They didn't even put up a fight. They didn't stop the war. They in fact had the largest deficits of George's 8 years in office.

Take some personal responsibility for once for what you party has done.

You don't understand a President has to sign a bill before it becomes law? Bush was going to go along with a Democrat majority Congress and sign bills changing his own agenda? Not on your life he wasn't.

dumbass, what kept the democrats from lowering the deficit by cutting spending?

What kept the democrats from defunding the Iraq war?

Are you telling me that no party can get anything done without controlling both houses of congress and the presidency?

Lets look at this another way. The deficit was lower under a republican congress from 2001 until 2006 but higher under a democrat congress from 2007-2008. Then we add a democrat president and the deficit has skyrocketed.

So your take is Bush was responsible for deficits under a republican congress, then he is responsible for deficits under a democrat congress, and last but not least Bush is responsible for deficits under a democrat president and democrat congress.

BUZKILLER calling someone a dumbass: PRICELESS

Yes, because it was all you. The road you took to work magically appeared and never had to be paid for out of anyone's taxes.

I paid taxes on the road, idiot. Its added to the cost of the gas I bought. As I drive an SUV, I probably paid more for the road than most people.

The schools that taught you to read just popped up like mushrooms one night, and are staffed my magical fairies who don't even understand this "money" you are so in love with.

Actually, I was taught to read by my parents, prior to starting school. Oh, and in those dark days prior to the US Dept of Ed, the money for the schools was local, and my parents paid property taxes.

You guys fail civilization.

#123 | Posted by snoofy

BTW, I pay property tax now, even thought I have no children. I guess if anyone fails civilization, its the lazy ass bastards who believe they are owed something. That they have a "right" to your stuff. Epic fail.

Yes, because it was all you. The road you took to work magically appeared and never had to be paid for out of anyone's taxes. The schools that taught you to read just popped up like mushrooms one night, and are staffed my magical fairies who don't even understand this "money" you are so in love with.

You guys fail civilization.

Nope.. You are an idiot and you failed to read the rest of my post. First of all, I likely pay WAY more in taxes than you because I am self-employed. So I get to pay for the short bus you ride to wherever it is you go. I pay county taxes, and business licensing fees at the city and state government that you don't pay. Then I pay state and federal taxes on the business level as well.

I am quite sure that my parents payed for my education via STATE (not federal dumbass) taxes until I went to private high school which my dad payed for on loans. I payed for college myself through work and loans which I finally just payed off 2 years ago after 15 years. Feeling foolish yet? You should be..

But since you are the squeaky wheel, I will ask how much did you give to people last year? Don't be like the other deadbeats here that I have asked and ignore the question. If its 0, then own up to it.

He is basically saying he doesn't want to pay for somebody else's health care.

#117 | Posted by jackass

God your quick! You should go to work for Obama. He needs brains like yours.

Sorry to tell you AU, but even Clinton, Carter, Kennedy & EVERY President/Congress spend the over payments that went into SS & used those moneis to pay for stuff in the General Fund arena.

That is why Reagan & the Dem's had to make big chages in the 80's .... but it was only a stop gap.

The REASON Clinton ran a surplus was 'cause he took money from the SS cookie jar to bolster the general fund cookie jar. Look it up, Clitons budget even in the surplus yrs didn't match income taxes taken in/fees/etc, he had to take out an IOU against SS to make it work.

For 40+ yrs, every Presidents & every congress has subsidized their general fund budget by stealing from SS.

IF SS had been left whole from day 1, we would be sitting on over $18T in the SS trust fund right now today. Not only could we afford to pay for healthcare for all at NO COST to anyone, including illegals, and increased productivity/wages/employeer saving would allow for us as a country to pretty much wipe out all poverty in this country & pay for a collage education for all our citizens & guests.

Our govn't has robbed up. In the last 10 yrs? Certainly, but it didn't start then, not by a long shot, it has been happening since the Korean War started & EVERY yr since.

To think this is an individual party's fault is falling for the trap set by both the Dem's & the GOP. As long as you continue to point in one direction or another, the crooks (Dem & GOP alike) win, as you will never see that it was both of them, the both knew & they both laughed all the way to the bank while you picked sides. For them ..... the only side is you/me/everyone else here & THEM.

BTW, that $18T is based on payments made to SS since it started, total payouts made since that time & an average interest rate of 3% (which is historicly VERY low for that period of time). The fund could have hit $20T+ if rates match the historic average of 4.5%

You hate/mistrust/etc the Repubs, I get that, but you r progressive/lib "friends" have been just as complicit in this theft. We could afford EVERY progressive dream RIGHT NOW without limiting any persons freedom if the rotten little brats in Wash DC had kept their blood soaked hands out of OUR cookie jar.

BTW AU, you keep refering to the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy". While it is true the wealthy DID indeed get a tax cut, so did EVERY American that had a Fed Income Tax liability, as did EVERY American that cashed in their 401K/IRA at the age of 59.5 or older.

If you made $40K, you got a tax cut. $40K/yr isn't 'wealthy'. Now, for the 40% or so of the population that had 0 Fed Income Tax liability, you are correct, they didn't get a tax cut ... how could they, their burden was already at $0. They didn't deserve a tax cut ..... they were not paying TAXES as it was.

Millions of retiries that were middle to lower middle class in average earning saw their retirment fund increase by 5%, as the tax rate went from 20% down to 15%.

The timing of the cuts may have been wrong (can be honestly debated) but to say they were only "tax cuts for the wealthy" is untrue & nothing but a talking point. Congrats, you have reach the Rush Libaugh level for honesty. :)

132 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
Right wing sites are reporting numbers all over the map. Got a link there, CAB? BTW, the largest organization representing doctors, the AMA, is firmly for HCR. I've read countless anecdotes from physicians who've seen the patient's care suffer as insurance companies f'ed them over.
-------------
Earth to AMERICANUNITY, the AMA does not represent the majorty of the doctors only a small %

Here is link to the article that says doctors will leave the profession.:

BTW, the largest organization representing doctors, the AMA, is firmly for HCR.

Have you ever tried getting money out of an insurance company? Of course they support the alternative..

And you can't get it through your simpleminded head that we wouldn't BE running deficits if not for (all unfunded - i.e. borrowed the money to do these): 2 tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare Part D, Iraq, recession:

you don't know that.

the same dipshits that threw that money out the window would have just looked for another open window to throw money out of.

#136 Buzkiller> No matter what you say about George Bush Barack Obama is doing 3 to 4 times what George did in deficit spending.

I'll post my standard response in support of what you are saying:

-------------- cut and paste here -------------

1. If you believed "deficits don't matter" under G.W.'s administration, but gripe about deficits under Obama, you are a right-wing party hack and hypocrite.

2. If you did not believe "deficits don't matter" under G.W.'s administration, but do believe "deficits don't matter" under Obama, you are a left-wing party hack and hypocrite.

3. If you believed "deficits don't matter" under G.W. AND Obama, you are financially clueless.

4. If you believed that deficits did matter under G.W.'s administration, and are far more concerned about much larger deficits under Obama's administration, you are one of the few people who have a clue. People in this category often think there is a financial train wreck just around the bend for the locomotive America.

-------------- cut and paste here -------------

"you don't know that."

Eberly's new response for everything.

"Millions of retiries that were middle to lower middle class in average earning saw their retirment fund increase by 5%, as the tax rate went from 20% down to 15%."

True but then when the housing bubble burst and the stock market tanked they lost all that they had gained. Bubbles nearly always follow tax cuts. Definitely did that time. Now we have increased debt plus no gain in wealth. We would have been better off without the tax cut.

#153 Danni> Now we have increased debt plus no gain in wealth. We would have been better off without the tax cut.

Let me fix your last sentence for you: "We would have been better off without the spending increases." See how easy it was?

But since you are the squeaky wheel, I will ask how much did you give to people last year? Don't be like the other deadbeats here that I have asked and ignore the question. If its 0, then own up to it.

If by "give to people" you mean "paid in Federal income tax," it's pretty close to zero. I haven't actually done my taxes yet, but my earnings were so minimal I think I get back most of what they withheld.

While we're on the topic of giving, how much did taxpayers subsidize your mortgage?

"How much did taxpayers subsidize your mortgage?"

Probably much less than the amount they subsidized your standard deduction

Quite possibly Eberly, but I'm not the one saying taxes == stealing. I tend to like living in civilization.

Plus, he gets a standard deduction too, or more. So his subsidy can't be less than mine. (Actually I might be completely off base here. You'd probably know better than me, I'm pretty ignorant on taxes. 1040EZ is about my speed.)

Quite possibly Eberly, but I'm not the one saying taxes == stealing. I tend to like living in civilization.

There's the little problem of when taxes become so burdensome, that they become un-civilized.

There's the little problem of when taxes become so burdensome, that they become un-civilized.

I guess that explains why Europe, with its higher taxes, isn't plagued by gangs and gun violence, and has far less people in prison than we do. Oh and it also explains why northern Europe has more entrepreneurs per capita than USA.

There's a bigger problem, where ideology so colors one's perception of reality that you can't fucking think straight any more.

I guess that explains why Europe, with its higher taxes, isn't plagued by gangs and gun violence, and has far less people in prison than we do.

America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. That's not a reflection on the people; it's a reflection on the government, drug laws especially.

Oh and it also explains why northern Europe has more entrepreneurs per capita than USA.

If that is true, there must be better incentives than here, whatever they are.

There's a bigger problem, where ideology so colors one's perception of reality that you can't fucking think straight any more.

Snoofy, you have a blind loyalty to big government as a dog to its master.

Too bad Tadowe tore you to shreds with every repartee. Neener, neener, neener.

Grow up, alex

#93 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-16 03:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't run from a WEBSITE with my tail tucked in between my legs, crying like a little girl.

You did. Then you came back.

I didn't run from a WEBSITE with my tail tucked in between my legs, crying like a little girl.

You did.

???

Another idiot who can't imagine that some people do things other than this blog. LOL

Goat- You created a thread to say goodbye for fucks sake, like a good little drama queen, then came back anyway.

Hardly the person to tell ANYONE to "grow up".

You did. Then you came back.

???

Well, alex, as you so astutely pointed out yesterday, I am the janitor on this rig. Being as such, I have a lot of toilets to clean and floors to buff. If you think that me leaving your charming company to go scrub a shit covered toilet (which was much more enjoyable than your company, btw) is running away you are an idiot who needs to get over herself very, very badly. LOL

Goat- You created a thread to say goodbye for fucks sake, like a good little drama queen, then came back anyway.

OH MY GOD! I changed my mind. Fucking sinner that I am! Good thing you have never, ever done that in your life -- right, alex? LOL

Another idiot who can't imagine that some people do things other than this blog. LOL

Posted by goatman at 2010-03-18 01:59 AM | Reply

Projection is such an ugly thing:

Drown your sorrows in more "texas sucks" stats, dull. Glad such a simple thing works to please your simple mind.

Posted by goatman at 2010-03-18 12:46 AM | Reply

"I wish this had happened in Texas so I could whine about it"

Dullifidian and his merry band of sour-grapers

Posted by goatman at 2010-03-17 06:05 PM | Reply

If this had happened in Texas, you'd see dull, axehole, deth, etc. all over it like a chicken on a june bug. But it happenned on the left coast, so you won't see the usual Texas sour-grapers commenting here. After all, racism doesn't exist in that bastion of liberalism, California, right? LOL

Posted by goatman at 2010-03-16 08:02 PM | Reply

"I wish this had happened it Texas so I could whine about it. But it happened in California, so I'll have to stay away from this thread."

signed:
Dullifidian

Posted by goatman at 2010-03-16 07:58 PM | Reply

I presume there's more to Nullifidians life than talking about texas on this blog. Apparently you're an idiot for believing otherwise. (theres more quotes, but thats enough)

It is amazing how far in your head that guy is, and how above the fray you pretend to be, when the slightest push turns you into the "idiot" you call others.

Later, troll. Have the last word (for three posts in a row) like you always do, frantic obsessive one.

LOL

???

bOoB has proven long ago that the relevance of a post is inversely proportional to its length. And I've noticed the rate of growth is directly proportional to the desperation of the poster. LOL

Later, troll. Have the last word (for three posts in a row) like you always do, frantic obsessive one.

Anything for you, doll. Since you seem to like it so much:

???

LOL

(and only 'cause I love you so much:)

!!!

posted from stall #3 that goatman was assigned to clean

If by "give to people" you mean "paid in Federal income tax," it's pretty close to zero. I haven't actually done my taxes yet, but my earnings were so minimal I think I get back most of what they withheld.

While we're on the topic of giving, how much did taxpayers subsidize your mortgage?

OK, now we are getting somewhere.. Now time for the tough questions.

No, I did not mean how much you paid in taxes. I meant how much did you give to help others? But because of your response, I now already know the answer to that.

Next question. Why are you a deadbeat? I only call you that because you contribute nearly nothing by your own account and expect others to take care of you. Why?

Who taught you that this is fair?

If you are that broke, how do you afford internet access?

To answer your question, obviously nobody subsidized my mortgage because I am a productive member of society and I pay it every month like one is supposed to. You are screwy!

I meant how much did you give to help others?
Zero cash.

Why are you a deadbeat? I only call you that because you contribute nearly nothing by your own account and expect others to take care of you. Why?
Others to take care of me, and I take care of them, because that's how societies operate. Perhaps you live in a Ted Kaczynski cabin in the woods. I choose to live among my fellow man.

If you are that broke, how do you afford internet access?
I saved money.

Obviously nobody subsidized my mortgage
Not true. You get a tax deduction on your mortgage interest payments. I get no similar deduction for my rent, even though "I pay it every month like one is supposed to."

Your home is subsidized by those without homes. Does that seem fair to you? Remind me again, who is stealing from whom?

Others to take care of me, and I take care of them, because that's how societies operate.

Yes, in the world I would like to live in. Not the one you vote for where people take care of you at gun point. The rest of your comment was just retarded.

I choose to live among my fellow man.
Everyone I have ever known that is a drain on society has few friends. Typically, people have to respect you to like you, and more often than not, people do not respect free-loaders. What do you give if you have nothing, and choose to do nothing?

But you never answered the question. You said that you saved money, but why do you expect very hard working middle class people like myself to take care of you? Especially if you have money! Why shouldn't I be after your savings - Give it to me damnit? And who molested your mind into believing that any of what you believe is fair?

Do you work? What do you do all day?

Your home is subsidized by those without homes. Does that seem fair to you? Remind me again, who is stealing from whom?

That is fucking ridiculous. YOU DON'T PAY TAXES which means you don't subsidize shit! I have tax deductions, but it sounds like I pay more in taxes than you make and that isn't saying much. You are like a one-legged person bitter at me for having 2 legs... Except the part where you probably have 2 legs and just suck at being a person.

You said that you saved money, but why do you expect very hard working middle class people like myself to take care of you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "expect to take care of me."

I don't think I expect that. But if you could give some examples of how you think I'm expecting to be cared for, that might clear things up.

YOU DON'T PAY TAXES which means you don't subsidize shit!

Well, I'll pay little taxes for 2009 owing to my not working in 2009. But 2009 was an odd year for me. One of the reasons I was able to not work in 2009 is the money I made in 2008, 2007, etc. I'm not on unemployment or food stamps or any of that shit. I pay my own bills, I take care of myself.

Homeowners get a tax deduction on their housing that renters don't. I don't see what's fair about that. And in the worst-case scenario, the way it unnaturally subsidizes home ownership leads to the housing bubble that is still a huge problem in the economy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "expect to take care of me."

You believe that I should pay for your healthcare, SS, and whatever else you aren't contributing to by not working.

Homeowners get a tax deduction on their housing that renters don't. I don't see what's fair about that. And in the worst-case scenario, the way it unnaturally subsidizes home ownership leads to the housing bubble that is still a huge problem in the economy.

The tax code and levels of taxation that we endure are unfair in general. In this case, my deduction of mortgage interest is in no way unfair to you because you aren't paying taxes currently. And as a renter, you don't pay property taxes. And over 50% of what I make goes to one form of tax or another, so I really don't feel badly about it anyway. I pay plenty and so do most middle class Americans.

You believe that I should pay for your healthcare, SS, and whatever else you aren't contributing to by not working.

I'm not working at this moment, but I have worked in my life.

I also believe that, once I am earning again, I should pay for everyone's health care, SSI, etc.

It's not like I plan to get cancer and never work again, then lay back and live the good life on your dime. Last I checked, that's not how cancer works.