The facts prove that we must gut entitlement programs if we are to survive

[ilia25]

Simply divide $11.3 trillion by those fucking 75 years. Already you will end up with 150 billions, or "massive" 5% of annual government spending.

And it will be much less than 5% if you do the math properly -- more like a 0.25% increase annually.

Oh my God....

This is liberal "logic" at it's finest! Because, once he divided the numbers, he came up with "only" $150 billion per year deficit, it's perfectly ok.

I never said it is "perfectly ok", you lying piece of shit.

I was disputing the claim about "massive annual injections" required to keep the entitlement programs the way they are. Those are lies the right-wing propagandists created for morons like you.

Because only morons who can't add would actually believe those lies.

See, when you do a budget, and you already project a deficit, you have a problem.

No, I don't. If you could add, you would know that the debt to GDP ratio will be shrinking even while having 400 billion deficits.

Still, I never said that we should leave the entitlement program underfunded. My point is that we can easily fix it, for example by making the rich paying a bit more in taxes.

 

[Duped]

We can't even agree what the drivers of the debt are. We will never be able to have a consensus on any cuts to anything because of politics. The envelope will be pushed to the brink, and maybe beyond - maybe
we are already there.
I think the only way meaningful cuts ( spend less than what you take in ) could be agreed upon would be across the board - everyone needs skin in the game, and a balanced budget amendment!
If it were my decision, I would deny illegal aliens everything. Stop all foreign aid. Close many military bases on foriegn soil. End the war now. Execute all prisoners who have victimized repeatedly. Stop the poor from procreating - if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. Sell federal land to citizens only. Exploit our resources etc. etc. I know- radical, but we live in radical times.
We all know we can't spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in continuously. Some care, some don't, and some want the US to collaps - across the board is the only viable option though I feel it is too late!

 

[kiwiman127]

The numbers don't lie....

While lawmakers from both parties squabble over tax rates, a fiscal crisis is looming on the horizon. Entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare to be precise -- have unfunded obligations of $48 trillion. By comparison, the fiscal cliff carries a price tag of roughly $650 billion.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

Morning Bell: 3 Simple Solutions for Fixing Social Security

Did you ever think about biting the real problem that is driving the cost of Medicare & Medicaid instead of eliminating the programs?
The US pays about double what every other country in the world pays for their healthcare. Every other country negotiates the prices that are charged for healthcare with the providers. Only Turkey and the US don't negotiate the priced to to be charged.
So, from 1999-2009 healthcare costs rose 131% and wages rose 38%.
Now it's a fact that healthcare's outrageous skyrocketing costs are the cause of the sad state of the financial position of Medicare/Medicaid. But it's not only those entities that are in trouble because of the runaway costs of healthcare. More and more people haven't been able to afford the costs. Businesses can't afford the cost and it's hurting their ability to compete on the world stage.
It basic common sense.
Can any convince me I'm wrong or at least try?

 

[P@triot]

Believe it or not.....most working class people are not able to fully provide for their own retirement. They have mortgages, utilities, medical expenses, child care, groceries, car payments, etc....to pay for.

And why? Because the federal government TAKES 50% or more of what these people are earning. Get rid of these asinine programs (Social Security, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc.), drop taxes to 10%, and these people could make their own way.

 

[P@triot]

The numbers don't lie....

While lawmakers from both parties squabble over tax rates, a fiscal crisis is looming on the horizon. Entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare to be precise -- have unfunded obligations of $48 trillion. By comparison, the fiscal cliff carries a price tag of roughly $650 billion.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

Morning Bell: 3 Simple Solutions for Fixing Social Security

Did you ever think about biting the real problem that is driving the cost of Medicare & Medicaid instead of eliminating the programs?
The US pays about double what every other country in the world pays for their healthcare. Every other country negotiates the prices that are charged for healthcare with the providers. Only Turkey and the US don't negotiate the priced to to be charged.
So, from 1999-2009 healthcare costs rose 131% and wages rose 38%.
Now it's a fact that healthcare's outrageous skyrocketing costs are the cause of the sad state of the financial position of Medicare/Medicaid. But it's not only those entities that are in trouble because of the runaway costs of healthcare. More and more people haven't been able to afford the costs. Businesses can't afford the cost and it's hurting their ability to compete on the world stage.
It basic common sense.
Can any convince me I'm wrong or at least try?

Absolutely! And it's very simple. Let me ask you this - why does an aspirin at your local pharmacy cost $.05, and yet cost $10 at a hospital?

Answer: Because many years ago, liberals dictated (ie like little Nazi's) that the healthcare industry must provide service to anyone - regardless of their ability to pay.

And because liberals don't comprehend business or basic economics, it never occurred to them that the healthcare industry was not going to eat those costs. They were going to pass it on to the paying consumer. Hence an aspirin in the hospital costs $10, to cover all of the non-paying parasites they are forced (ie slavery) to provide labor to.

Get rid of that monumental bit of liberal stupidity, and healthcare costs will plummet faster than a liberal controlled economy.

 

[P@triot]

We can't even agree what the drivers of the debt are. We will never be able to have a consensus on any cuts to anything because of politics. The envelope will be pushed to the brink, and maybe beyond - maybe
we are already there.
I think the only way meaningful cuts ( spend less than what you take in ) could be agreed upon would be across the board - everyone needs skin in the game, and a balanced budget amendment!
If it were my decision, I would deny illegal aliens everything. Stop all foreign aid. Close many military bases on foriegn soil. End the war now. Execute all prisoners who have victimized repeatedly. Stop the poor from procreating - if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. Sell federal land to citizens only. Exploit our resources etc. etc. I know- radical, but we live in radical times.
We all know we can't spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in continuously. Some care, some don't, and some want the US to collaps - across the board is the only viable option though I feel it is too late!

Great post - that it was one hell of a comprehensive plan. And that's what it's going to take to solve this nightmare. A comprehensive plan.

I would add that we cannot simply "end a war" (it's not up to us, it's up to the enemy - they must unilaterally surrender or all be killed).

However, one of the best things we can do is what you mentioned - exploiting our natural resources. The amount of jobs and subsequent tax revenues created by drilling, fracking, etc. is beyond massive.

 

[Political Junky]

The numbers don't lie....

While lawmakers from both parties squabble over tax rates, a fiscal crisis is looming on the horizon. Entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare to be precise -- have unfunded obligations of $48 trillion. By comparison, the fiscal cliff carries a price tag of roughly $650 billion.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

Morning Bell: 3 Simple Solutions for Fixing Social Security

Did you ever think about biting the real problem that is driving the cost of Medicare & Medicaid instead of eliminating the programs?
The US pays about double what every other country in the world pays for their healthcare. Every other country negotiates the prices that are charged for healthcare with the providers. Only Turkey and the US don't negotiate the priced to to be charged.
So, from 1999-2009 healthcare costs rose 131% and wages rose 38%.
Now it's a fact that healthcare's outrageous skyrocketing costs are the cause of the sad state of the financial position of Medicare/Medicaid. But it's not only those entities that are in trouble because of the runaway costs of healthcare. More and more people haven't been able to afford the costs. Businesses can't afford the cost and it's hurting their ability to compete on the world stage.
It basic common sense.
Can any convince me I'm wrong or at least try?

Absolutely! And it's very simple. Let me ask you this - why does an aspirin at your local pharmacy cost $.05, and yet cost $10 at a hospital?

Answer: Because many years ago, liberals dictated (ie like little Nazi's) that the healthcare industry must provide service to anyone - regardless of their ability to pay.

And because liberals don't comprehend business or basic economics, it never occurred to them that the healthcare industry was not going to eat those costs. They were going to pass it on to the paying consumer. Hence an aspirin in the hospital costs $10, to cover all of the non-paying parasites they are forced (ie slavery) to provide labor to.

Get rid of that monumental bit of liberal stupidity, and healthcare costs will plummet faster than a liberal controlled economy.

Gee, now who was president in 1986? Why it was Reagan, the liberal.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

 

[P@triot]

Did you ever think about biting the real problem that is driving the cost of Medicare & Medicaid instead of eliminating the programs?
The US pays about double what every other country in the world pays for their healthcare. Every other country negotiates the prices that are charged for healthcare with the providers. Only Turkey and the US don't negotiate the priced to to be charged.
So, from 1999-2009 healthcare costs rose 131% and wages rose 38%.
Now it's a fact that healthcare's outrageous skyrocketing costs are the cause of the sad state of the financial position of Medicare/Medicaid. But it's not only those entities that are in trouble because of the runaway costs of healthcare. More and more people haven't been able to afford the costs. Businesses can't afford the cost and it's hurting their ability to compete on the world stage.
It basic common sense.
Can any convince me I'm wrong or at least try?

Absolutely! And it's very simple. Let me ask you this - why does an aspirin at your local pharmacy cost $.05, and yet cost $10 at a hospital?

Answer: Because many years ago, liberals dictated (ie like little Nazi's) that the healthcare industry must provide service to anyone - regardless of their ability to pay.

And because liberals don't comprehend business or basic economics, it never occurred to them that the healthcare industry was not going to eat those costs. They were going to pass it on to the paying consumer. Hence an aspirin in the hospital costs $10, to cover all of the non-paying parasites they are forced (ie slavery) to provide labor to.

Get rid of that monumental bit of liberal stupidity, and healthcare costs will plummet faster than a liberal controlled economy.

Gee, now who was president in 1986? Why it was Reagan, the liberal.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

Like a typical liberal, you believe the President of the United States runs the country (sort of like the dictator all of you wish he were).

Now, if you actually understood your own government (the same government you comment on without understanding), you would realize that legislation is created by CONGRESS. That's right, CONGRESS. Legislation is not created by the President. Furthermore, legislation is PASSED by CONGRESS. That's right!

Gee, who were the majority in Congress in 1986? Was it Tip O'Neill and the dumbocrats? Why yes! Yes it was....

 

[P@triot]

Gee, now who was president in 1986? Why it was Reagan, the liberal.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

By the way, if you're going to post a link, I would highly recommend taking the time to at least read the first sentence....

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

 

[auditor0007]

Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - and is okay until 2033 even without any changes. Sooo, what's the problem?

Cut defense in Half.

Come on Lakhota, I do hope you are smarter than that. We all know there is a huge surplus of IOU's for SS. That does not equate to real money. Those IOU's need to be paid by someone, which is the federal government. Any idea where they are going to get that money from? They either must raise taxes to collect it, or they could just print the money and cause massive inflation, making everyone's money worth much less.

 

[auditor0007]

Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - and is okay until 2033 even without any changes. Sooo, what's the problem?

Cut defense in Half.

The fact that there is no money in Social security. Your leaders spent it decades ago. IOUs are not a surplus. They never were. And they never will be.

The minute LBJ, a Dem, put SS in the General Fund it was doomed. Those Clowns have been stealing it ever since.

Of course the Clowns don't put anything into SS. They have their own fund which they don't rob blind.

If anyone thinks they give a shit about your SS your living in la la land.

Personally I'd like every dime I have in both SS and Medicare. I can take better care of my money than some asshole in DC.

Those programs never, ever should have been implemented. Another case of no one looking at the big picture and unintended consequences.

Two more gifts courtesey of the asshole Democrats. Funny how all those entitlements are forced on us by the Dems.

I'm sure you are one of many conservatives who will be happy that you get your SS and Medicare benefits when that time comes.

 

[Political Junky]

Gee, now who was president in 1986? Why it was Reagan, the liberal.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

By the way, if you're going to post a link, I would highly recommend taking the time to at least read the first sentence....

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

Reagan signed it.

 

[auditor0007]

.

"We must gut entitlement programs if we are to survive".

I suppose this depends on one's definition of the word "survive".

If it means "to exist as a country", that's certainly not true. If it means "remain as we are, with significant wealth concentration and an incredible quality of life for some", then that's a different story.

My guess is that we'll see higher overall income taxes, especially at the top end, within a few years. The combination of higher taxation and the drag it will have on the economy will reduce the standard of living for many -- fewer toys -- but quality of life overall? Not so sure.

We've passed the tipping point, gang. We've been borrowing too much money for decades now, we've been living an artificial lifestyle on credit cards, and it's time to pay up. Does anyone ever wonder why we never hear about "interest that must be paid on the debt" when there's a discussion on our budget and deficit? It's because both parties have had their hands in the cookie jar and no one's going to fess up.

We'll exist, possibly just fine, but it's not going to look like it has.

.

When we finally do decide to raise taxes, we will find out something very interesting; it won't have any negative effect on the economy. It never has in the past. Some of our greatest economic growth came at times when tax rates were much higher than they are today. Actually, today they are at the lowest level in our lifetime, and look at the economy. Go figure. Here's the truth about the economy. Regardless of tax rates, if consumers have money to spend, then businesses will expand to meet that demand. It is true that in some cases businesses create new products that create economic growth, but the greatest growth comes from the middle class having money to spend, not from the wealthy having excess amounts of money. That doesn't mean we need to rape the rich, but making them pay more, at least until things are more favorable economically, it's not a big deal.

 

[Meathead]

The fact that there is no money in Social security. Your leaders spent it decades ago. IOUs are not a surplus. They never were. And they never will be.

The minute LBJ, a Dem, put SS in the General Fund it was doomed. Those Clowns have been stealing it ever since.

Of course the Clowns don't put anything into SS. They have their own fund which they don't rob blind.

If anyone thinks they give a shit about your SS your living in la la land.

Personally I'd like every dime I have in both SS and Medicare. I can take better care of my money than some asshole in DC.

Those programs never, ever should have been implemented. Another case of no one looking at the big picture and unintended consequences.

Two more gifts courtesey of the asshole Democrats. Funny how all those entitlements are forced on us by the Dems.

I'm sure you are one of many conservatives who will be happy that you get your SS and Medicare benefits when that time comes.

If the General Fund is sucked dry, there will be no benefits. It really isn't that complicated.

 

[auditor0007]

Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe an estimated $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. It has been running deficits since 2010, according to the Social Security Administration.

[/url]

The latter is simply not true.



Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow.

Do you need that explained to you, and explained to you why it proves your claim wasn't true?
Trustees Report Summary

Hate to say it, but it is true. All of you who say SS is fully funded with a surplus need to understand that the IOU's have to be paid for. They don't just magically appear in real dollars because we want them to.

 

[auditor0007]

What do you want to see done to SS and medicare?

Its relatively simple. Slowly begin raising the age of retirement. Instead of 67 (for example) make anyone under the age of 55 unable to collect before 68 (or whatever age is chosen).

Studies of shown that SS would then be solvent for another 50 years. Same thing with Medicare.

There. Problem solved.

It really is that simple. People will not like it, but the good thing about raising the retirement age is that we reduce spending on the front end which makes it much easier for people to plan how they will get through those few extra years. Once they hit the new retirement age, they can then be certain that they will receive full benefits. To me, this is a much better way to reduce benefits compared to reducing benefits for the duration of retirement.

 

[auditor0007]

The minute LBJ, a Dem, put SS in the General Fund it was doomed. Those Clowns have been stealing it ever since.

Of course the Clowns don't put anything into SS. They have their own fund which they don't rob blind.

If anyone thinks they give a shit about your SS your living in la la land.

Personally I'd like every dime I have in both SS and Medicare. I can take better care of my money than some asshole in DC.

Those programs never, ever should have been implemented. Another case of no one looking at the big picture and unintended consequences.

Two more gifts courtesey of the asshole Democrats. Funny how all those entitlements are forced on us by the Dems.

I'm sure you are one of many conservatives who will be happy that you get your SS and Medicare benefits when that time comes.

If the General Fund is sucked dry, there will be no benefits. It really isn't that complicated.

That is why we will work on finding a solution that keeps these programs solvent. The problem with those with extreme views is that it's always all or nothing. It gets old after a while.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The fact that there is no money in Social security. Your leaders spent it decades ago. IOUs are not a surplus. They never were. And they never will be.

The minute LBJ, a Dem, put SS in the General Fund it was doomed. Those Clowns have been stealing it ever since.

Of course the Clowns don't put anything into SS. They have their own fund which they don't rob blind.

If anyone thinks they give a shit about your SS your living in la la land.

Personally I'd like every dime I have in both SS and Medicare. I can take better care of my money than some asshole in DC.

Those programs never, ever should have been implemented. Another case of no one looking at the big picture and unintended consequences.

Two more gifts courtesey of the asshole Democrats. Funny how all those entitlements are forced on us by the Dems.

I'm sure you are one of many conservatives who will be happy that you get your SS and Medicare benefits when that time comes.

I'm mid-50's and quite certain I'll never get a DIME!

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's simple economics...you have the public sector and the private sector.

Through the decades the USA got stronger economically and the public sector grew bit by bit to help those not doing so well in the private sector, a so-called safety net was created.

Over time more and more money was sucked from the private sector to the public sector via taxes as workers in the public sector became greedier for more power. Soon people in the private sector realized they can quit working hard and just live off the public sector handouts (the Obama money) because it was free and easy.

More and more people got on the public sector gravy train and the private sector started losing economic steam to keep the tax revenue meeting demand, this the public sector went into debt and just kept going. Repeat and rinse.....until the system blows up.

 

[J.E.D]

It'll be cold day in hell before this happens too, but, what our government SHOULD do, is sit down with a COMPLETE list of EVERY government agency there is, ALL of them, and start closing the ones that aren't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I know that would be ESPECIALLY painful for obama, since he's grown the government more than any another president in history.

You people just dive head first into your lies. Where do you get this BS from?

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.