SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[Iriemon]

The graph already includes real inflation numbers.

As did my GDP numbers that is why they were comparable.

I don't know, social spending wasn't really a factor before LBJ. So I don't know that too much analysis was done back in the 60's. But I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would be able to find something.
It seemed as though you were excusing the Medicaid spending because it was associated with rising medical care. So I was pointing out, if the government foots the bill then it is welfare, regardless of other conditions surrounding the spending.

That's fair. The difference is that welfare hasn't been increasing so much because the govt is giving out more and more but because the cost of providing medical care has increased so dramatically.

There is one of three things going on here, either you are completely unable to rub two thoughts together or your intentionally trying to distort the facts again, which one is it? The spending on the chart is in 2000 dollars, not actual dollars. Which means they have factored in real inflation.

You've said that three times now. So were the GDP figures I posted. So what is your point?

Medical care costs have been rising even more reason we should find people work and not make them government dependents.

Who says they don't have work. There's no requirement that employers provide health care.

 

[jreeves]

Post ignored. If you want to have a discussion without infantile flaming I'll be happy to do so.

Otherwise I'll discuss these issues and defend my positions with anyone else.

Of course you'll ignore that I proved you were trying to distort poverty rates in the US. That really doesn't surprise me at all.

I'll have a discussion and defend my positions with you or anyone who can do so without resorting to name calling.

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

 

[Iriemon]

Of course you'll ignore that I proved you were trying to distort poverty rates in the US. That really doesn't surprise me at all.

I'll have a discussion and defend my positions with you or anyone who can do so without resorting to name calling.

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

You suggested I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

 

[jreeves]

As did my GDP numbers that is why they were comparable.



That's fair. The difference is that welfare hasn't been increasing so much because the govt is giving out more and more but because the cost of providing medical care has increased so dramatically.

There is one of three things going on here, either you are completely unable to rub two thoughts together or your intentionally trying to distort the facts again, which one is it? The spending on the chart is in 2000 dollars, not actual dollars. Which means they have factored in real inflation.

You've said that three times now. So were the GDP figures I posted. So what is your point?

Medical care costs have been rising even more reason we should find people work and not make them government dependents.

Who says they don't have work. There's no requirement that employers provide health care.

The numbers you used were flawed, you obviously couldn't read the graph.

There is a reason Medicaid is called Means tested welfare, do you have a clue?

 

[jreeves]

I'll have a discussion and defend my positions with you or anyone who can do so without resorting to name calling.

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

You claimed I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

We weren't talking about the family poverty rate now were we? We were talking about the poverty rate in the US, nice try though I have to admit....

 

[Iriemon]

There is one of three things going on here, either you are completely unable to rub two thoughts together or your intentionally trying to distort the facts again, which one is it? The spending on the chart is in 2000 dollars, not actual dollars. Which means they have factored in real inflation.

You've said that three times now. So were the GDP figures I posted. So what is your point?

Medical care costs have been rising even more reason we should find people work and not make them government dependents.

Who says they don't have work. There's no requirement that employers provide health care.

The numbers you used were flawed, you obviously couldn't read the graph.

Disagree with your opinion.

There is a reason Medicaid is called Means tested welfare, do you have a clue?

So what?

 

[Iriemon]

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

You claimed I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

We weren't talking about the family poverty rate now were we? We were talking about the poverty rate in the US, nice try though I have to admit....

Maybe you weren't. Sorry you got confused.

 

[jreeves]

I'll have a discussion and defend my positions with you or anyone who can do so without resorting to name calling.

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

You suggested I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

 

[jreeves]

You claimed I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

We weren't talking about the family poverty rate now were we? We were talking about the poverty rate in the US, nice try though I have to admit....

Maybe you weren't. Sorry you got confused.

Liar I could go back and copy and paste if you would like?

 

[Iriemon]

We weren't talking about the family poverty rate now were we? We were talking about the poverty rate in the US, nice try though I have to admit....

Maybe you weren't. Sorry you got confused.

Liar I could go back and copy and paste if you would like?

Do whatever makes you feel good.

How's your search for the backup for that bullshit you spouted about JFK authorizing waterboarding coming?

 

[sealybobo]

Mission accomplished. The GOP always wanted to kill SS. This is why they should have never been put in charge.

The solution is to make all the young mexican illegals US Citizens so they can start paying taxes.

And make them serve in the military for minimum wage. Once they are out, they get full citizenship and VA bene's.

ROFLMNAO... Damn... that is just SAD.

What color is the sky in your world?

FTR: SS is a Ponzi Scheme... it is mathematically untenable... But NO SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT IS TENABLE...

The entire litany of left-think giveaways, since the front edge of the New Deal has been subsidized by SS... Medicare and all the federally subsidized State entitlements have ALL been subsidized by the general fund, which SS confiscations are summarily applied; which means that ALL OF IT is a SCAM...

And the final tab is JUST about to come due... and when it does... it is OVER for what stands now as the US GOVERNMENT... and this notion that 'something can be done to "FIX IT"...' is ABSURD... the tab to "FIX IT" is four times the annual GDP of the entire US economy... and there is NO WAY ON EARTH, that FIXING THAT can be accomplished PERIOD; given that the left is NOT going to even SLOW ENTITLEMENT SPENDING... so the issue is MATASTICIZED ECONOMIC CANCER... its a result of sustained lethal doses of left-think to the central culture system; there is no means for a cure...

Yes We Can!

But not if the GOP is allowed to kill it. Then, no we can not.

Social Security is one of the greatest ideas ever and most Americans want it. This is why I love that the GOP is trying to kill it. Thats very unpopular.

We need to raise taxes on the rich. They unfairly got richer the last 8 years. All the Wallstreet and Mortgage and Insurance and Oil & Defense & Credit card companies need to give some of that fucking money back. Cry me a river.

Bush purposely overspent to make it easier to end a lot of social programs that the majority of Americans approve of. One being social security. He may have succeeded.

To replace it, we're going to get single payer government healthcare. You can opt in or out. But its going to compete with private insurers and we will show you a government program that works better than the free market. The insurance companies are already shitting their pants.

Many people pay $12K a year for healthcare. Imagine having that bill erased. Even if your taxes were raised $6K to pay for it, you'd still come out $6K richer!!! That'll make up for the hit SS is going to take because of GOPanomics.

 

[Newby]

Like you have never insulted someone on these boards? Tell me again how your posting of family poverty rates is comparable to the overall poverty rate? That seemed to be an intentional effort to distort, maybe I'm wrong, why don't you explain?

You suggested I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

I have to agree with you, he's not worth the effort, which is why I typically don't get into discussions with him. He needs to learn intellectual honesty. That's his main problem and I think it's also his problem with what he believes about the government. If he were honest with himself, he couldn't hold the views that he does. I wish I could lie to myself and others so easily and be perfectly okay with it, but unfortunately I have a conscience.

 

[Care4all]

SS has the surplus money to carry forward the boomers another couple of decades...yes, the fed borrowed from it and now it is time for the fed to pay it back....

Since Reagan doubled our tax rates on SS back in 1983 to create these surplusses for the baby boomers, they have borrowed the SS surplus money from this tax hike, to balance the budget...

Income taxes and other taxes will have to go up along with spending cuts, to pay back what is owed to SS....this is how the law is set up and has always been set up....what they used of SS surplus funds to pay the regular budget deficits is BORROWED not stolen...this is not SS's problem, this is the Federal Budget's problem of overspending and an Income tax problem....more income taxes need to be collected to pay back what they OWE from essentially borrowing it....not more SS taxes....

As it stands, the working class up to making $100k has been paying $200 billion a year towards what income tax payers should have been paying....

care

 

[Newby]

How about the government quits over spending?

 

[Care4all]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Care

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

Historical Poverty Tables

Maybe you weren't. Sorry you got confused.

Liar I could go back and copy and paste if you would like?

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

What do you call it when you intentionally falisfy what I wrote in order to accuse my of lying?

 

[Iriemon]

You suggested I made it up. I did not. What is the difference between using the family poverty rates vs. the overall rate? If the family poverty rate dropped 30% that's pretty good to me.

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

I have to agree with you, he's not worth the effort, which is why I typically don't get into discussions with him. He needs to learn intellectual honesty.

And what do you call it when someone like JReeves intentionally falsifies what someone wrote in order to accuse them of lying? See previous post # 136.

 

[Iriemon]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Care

Of course, spending is only part of the picture in the budget. Going back to the relative spending levels of Clinton wouldn't completely solve the problem because the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues by hundreds of billions a year:

Year - Total Rev.
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

To get back to the surplus state we were in with Clinton, you'd have to return spending to relative levels in 2000 (Get out of Iraq, cut military spending 1/3, trim health care) *and* repeal the Bush tax cuts to get revenues back up.

 

[Care4all]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Care

Of course, spending is only part of the picture in the budget. Going back to the relative spending levels of Clinton wouldn't completely solve the problem because the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues by hundreds of billions a year:

Year - Total Rev.
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

To get back to the surplus state we were in with Clinton, you'd have to return spending to relative levels in 2000 (Get out of Iraq, cut military spending 1/3, trim health care) *and* repeal the Bush tax cuts to get revenues back up.

yes, all of this is true...

 

[sealybobo]

How about the government quits over spending?

Why didn't we think of that.