The Ecomomic Tsunami Coming.....and Obama's only...

[Philobeado]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

 

[Iriemon]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

I've been talking about this for years. There will be a giant struggle between the boomers that don't want to lose benefits and later generations that will balk at the return of 70% tax rates to pay for it.

The irony is that it is nothing that is news. The problem with the boomer retirement bubble has been known for decades.

In the mid-1980s, Congress and Reagan had the remarkable foresight to address it by raising SS taxes 2 percentage points, knowing people would be paying higher SS taxes than they were supposed to, with the idea that a SS trust would have $3+ trillion in it to fund the boomers' retirements.

$3 trillion would maybe not completely solve the SS problem, but would put a big dent in it.

Unfortunately, in one of the greatest thefts of all time, that $3 trillion was stolen to finance the deficits over the past 25 years. There is nothing left but worthless IOUs.

The skeptical part of me would believe this was no accident. SS is a regressive tax the working middle and lower classes pay -- it's not levied on incomes over about $100k and therefore the really rich don't effectively pay SS tax as a percentage of their income. When it was increased it burdened the lower and middle classes -- not the very rich.

So what has effectively happened is that the extra tax the middle and lower classes paid was stolen to finance income tax and investment tax cuts -- that benefit the really rich.

Did this happen by coincidence? You all be the judge.

 

[007]

Social Security would still be solvent for decades to come had our illustrious elected officials kept their GREEDY little fingers out of it, taking the surplus money and leaving worthless IOU's in it's place. But hey, the government now wants to run major car companies, banks, and HEALTH CARE. The government has FUCKED UP EVERYTHING IT'S TOUCHED, yet we have kool aide drinkers thinking it's fine for oblahma to turn us into a socialist, third world, shit hole.

 

[alan1]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

Maybe it's time for a financial stress test.

 

[auditor0007]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

 

[Angel Heart]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

Maybe it's time for a financial stress test.

How about an audit of the Federal Reserve while we're at it?

 

[Annie]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

and Soylent Green becomes reality.

 

[alan1]

exacerbating it with his policies. The dirty little secret that he's not sharing with all the koolaid drinkers is that with regards to Medicare, all those old people are eventually going to be told that they're expendable. Don't even get me started about Social Security...

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

Maybe it's time for a financial stress test.

How about an audit of the Federal Reserve while we're at it?

That needs to happen to.

 

[Seraega]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

I'm all for reducing benefits on people with enough cash flow to cover their own retirement. It should be a stop gap like any other welfare program... the flip side of this is that the $106k cap. There's no reason for the burden of the program to only fall on the working poor and middle class. The rich benefit by not having homeless old people wandering the street too.

 

[alan1]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

I'm all for reducing benefits on people with enough cash flow to cover their own retirement. It should be a stop gap like any other welfare program... the flip side of this is that the $106k cap. There's no reason for the burden of the program to only fall on the working poor and middle class. The rich benefit by not having homeless old people wandering the street too.

How about if we remove the pension that our congressmen get paid when they retire, and let them collect Social Security instead.

 

[Seraega]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

I'm all for reducing benefits on people with enough cash flow to cover their own retirement. It should be a stop gap like any other welfare program... the flip side of this is that the $106k cap. There's no reason for the burden of the program to only fall on the working poor and middle class. The rich benefit by not having homeless old people wandering the street too.

How about if we remove the pension that our congressmen get paid when they retire, and let them collect Social Security instead.

I've got no problem with that either. They've done that to many federal career employees, why should the politicians get a better deal? Give them a tiny FERS annuity and a Thrift Savings Plan like people who do real work.

 

[007]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

I'm all for reducing benefits on people with enough cash flow to cover their own retirement. It should be a stop gap like any other welfare program... the flip side of this is that the $106k cap. There's no reason for the burden of the program to only fall on the working poor and middle class. The rich benefit by not having homeless old people wandering the street too.

How about giving people BACK what they've PAID IN?

 

[JohnStOnge]

[
Unfortunately, in one of the greatest thefts of all time, that $3 trillion was stolen to finance the deficits over the past 25 years. There is nothing left but worthless IOUs.

The skeptical part of me would believe this was no accident. SS is a regressive tax the working middle and lower classes pay -- it's not levied on incomes over about $100k and therefore the really rich don't effectively pay SS tax as a percentage of their income. When it was increased it burdened the lower and middle classes -- not the very rich.

So what has effectively happened is that the extra tax the middle and lower classes paid was stolen to finance income tax and investment tax cuts -- that benefit the really rich.

Did this happen by coincidence? You all be the judge.

Has it ever occurred to you that the deficits you're talking about were incurred because of spending? The "rich" didn't steal anything from anybody. They pay more than their fair share of social security taxes and WAY more than their fair share of taxes overall.

The whole idea that there is some kind of "moral" imperative whereby someone who makes more pays more for running the country is absurd. It may be a practical necessity. But one of the biggest problems with this country is that the majority of the population has become accustomed to demanding services and benefits that are mostly paid for by "the rich."

If you got to table 1B at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf, you will see that the share of total Federal tax liability for the top 20% of households in terms of income was 68.7% in 2005. It was 56.4% in 1979 and has been in a consistent upward trend since then. Meanwhile, the bottom 40% share was 4.9% in 2005. It was 9.3% in 1979 and has been in a generally downward trend. The "rich" have not been paying less of the share; they've been paying more of the share.

By the way, the top 20% also bore 43.6% of the "Social Insurance" tax burden in 2005 as compared to 31.1% borne by the bottom 60%. In 1979 it was 35.9% for the top 20% vs. 36.8% for the bottom 60%. The idea that "the rich" didn't bear a fair share of any social security taxes paid is nonsense. As time goes on, they bear more and more of the burden. The system in place makes a larger and larger percentage of our population effective parasites.

 

[Iriemon]

[
Unfortunately, in one of the greatest thefts of all time, that $3 trillion was stolen to finance the deficits over the past 25 years. There is nothing left but worthless IOUs.

The skeptical part of me would believe this was no accident. SS is a regressive tax the working middle and lower classes pay -- it's not levied on incomes over about $100k and therefore the really rich don't effectively pay SS tax as a percentage of their income. When it was increased it burdened the lower and middle classes -- not the very rich.

So what has effectively happened is that the extra tax the middle and lower classes paid was stolen to finance income tax and investment tax cuts -- that benefit the really rich.

Did this happen by coincidence? You all be the judge.

Has it ever occurred to you that the deficits you're talking about were incurred because of spending?

No, because that is not true. Increased spending on military buildups and wars were a big factor, sure. They were mostly because of decreased revenues from tax cuts, especially in Bush's case. If you want to double the military budget and fight wars, you raise taxes to pay for it, not cut and borrow.

The "rich" didn't steal anything from anybody. They pay more than their fair share of social security taxes and WAY more than their fair share of taxes overall.

Didn't claim they did. I said the extra SS taxes the middle/lower classes mostly paid were stolen to finance income and investment tax cuts that mostly benefitted the rich.

The whole idea that there is some kind of "moral" imperative whereby someone who makes more pays more for running the country is absurd. It may be a practical necessity. But one of the biggest problems with this country is that the majority of the population has become accustomed to demanding services and benefits that are mostly paid for by "the rich."

That is a matter of opinion.

If you got to table 1B at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf,

I gave you the cite to those tables, didn't I? Your welcome.

you will see that the share of total Federal tax liability for the top 20% of households in terms of income was 68.7% in 2005. It was 56.4% in 1979 and has been in a consistent upward trend since then. Meanwhile, the bottom 40% share was 4.9% in 2005. It was 9.3% in 1979 and has been in a generally downward trend. The "rich" have not been paying less of the share; they've been paying more of the share.

Check the percentage of total income the upper 20% makes and you'll see why it went up. The rich have gotten richer.

By the way, the top 20% also bore 43.6% of the "Social Insurance" tax burden in 2005 as compared to 31.1% borne by the bottom 60%. In 1979 it was 35.9% for the top 20% vs. 36.8% for the bottom 60%. The idea that "the rich" didn't bear a fair share of any social security taxes paid is nonsense. As time goes on, they bear more and more of the burden. The system in place makes a larger and larger percentage of our population effective parasites.

They also make 55% of the income. What does that tell you?

 

[Iriemon]

There are solutions available. It's just that nobody wants to discuss something that may require a reduction in benefits. But that is the only logical answer at this point.

I'm all for reducing benefits on people with enough cash flow to cover their own retirement. It should be a stop gap like any other welfare program... the flip side of this is that the $106k cap. There's no reason for the burden of the program to only fall on the working poor and middle class. The rich benefit by not having homeless old people wandering the street too.

How about giving people BACK what they've PAID IN?

That's not the way insurance works.

 

[wimpy77]

iriemon is correct you can't just give people money it doesn't work that way, nor will the government cut benefits. they would want obama presidency on a silver platter. i think what they are eventually gonna raise the retirement age to 70 or 72 and cut future receiptents benefits and oh yeah raise taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

iriemon is correct you can't just give people money it doesn't work that way, nor will the government cut benefits. they would want obama presidency on a silver platter. i think what they are eventually gonna raise the retirement age to 70 or 72 and cut future receiptents benefits and oh yeah raise taxes.

I think they should make it means tested too. Doesn't make a lot of sense to be sending folks like Warren Buffet SS checks when the system is about broke.

 

[Annie]

iriemon is correct you can't just give people money it doesn't work that way, nor will the government cut benefits. they would want obama presidency on a silver platter. i think what they are eventually gonna raise the retirement age to 70 or 72 and cut future receiptents benefits and oh yeah raise taxes.

I think they should make it means tested too. Doesn't make a lot of sense to be sending folks like Warren Buffet SS checks when the system is about broke.

I don't mind 'means testing' after the person has the money that 'was set aside for them' collected. If someone wants to say, "No thanks, give my part to others." Fine too. But, the person should decide what to do with the money that has been forcibly witheld for the past 70 years or so.

 

[editec]

Heard yesterday on NPR that, thanks to the economic meltdown and the gigantic number of unemployed, that Social Security, which was solvent until about 2050, is now only only solvent to 2037.

I also heard that Medicare is now only solvent until 2017.

But hey, aren't we all happy that we can buy cheap foreign made consumer goods at WALMARTS?

Yup, America is doing real well since it decided that it no longer needed industry, isn't it?

Yeah, we're all going to be software programmers and brain surgeons and money managers, and that'll work just fine.

Those factory workers (who didn't study hard enough in school and therefore deserve to be mocked) were all just losers who we can just throw away like outdated machinery...only they're still here.

 

[Xenophon]

Hey, it's only money, the gov will simply print more.