Its the spending Stupid

[auditor0007]

If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.

By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.

Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".

If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.

But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.

What is so amazing is that these policies have hurt the middle class the most, yet it is mostly middle class individuals who continue to support this thinking and actually believe it is in their best interest. Talk about brainwashing, it is absolutely unbelievable.

 

[auditor0007]

If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.

By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.

Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".

If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.

But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk]YouTube - Health Care[/ame]

For the most part, I cannot stand Kucinich. But on this issue, he is 100% correct. We have permitted ourselves to be bamboozled. What makes it so bad is the fact we think we are smarter because of it.

 

[auditor0007]

It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...

The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.

The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.

Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.

The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.

Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.

That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.

Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.

 

[auditor0007]

The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.

Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.

That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.

Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.

The funny thing about making people work longer is the idea that might make them live even longer. Retirement kills people with boredom, and I don't mean that as a joke. The other issue is that if you are married, all of a sudden you have to spend 24/7 with your life partner. While being married is great, not having to face each other 24/7 is a good thing for most, lol.

My father is turning 74 this year, and he still works a 40 hour week as a consultant. He travels and loves working. The reason he loves it is because it means he still matters. I also have a client in Colorado who is 95 years old and works six days per week. He has owned his business for nearly 50 years. He can no longer drive, but he is driven to work and home every day.

 

[Foxfyre]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.

Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.

The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.

Do you honestly think the ONLY places there are to cut the budget is in defense or essential services?

How about the $100k allocated for a walking tour in Boydton VA, population 454? It didn't bring any new jobs to Boydton, but it brought a few hundred votes to the Congressman who put the earmark in a spending bill.

How about $1,649,000 for the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago that generally nets a surplus of between $10 and $18 million every year and in 2008 ending that fiscal year with $249 million in the bank?

How about $173,000 for the Scottish Rite Temple in Bloomington IL or the $10 million allocated for wine research?

Do you feel you're getting your money's worth out of these tidy little earmarks? Or would it make sense to say that the government should not be spending the people's future money this way. They aren't spending what was already in the treasury because the treasury was empty and full of IOU's.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.

That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.

Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.

The funny thing about making people work longer is the idea that might make them live even longer. Retirement kills people with boredom, and I don't mean that as a joke. The other issue is that if you are married, all of a sudden you have to spend 24/7 with your life partner. While being married is great, not having to face each other 24/7 is a good thing for most, lol.

My father is turning 74 this year, and he still works a 40 hour week as a consultant. He travels and loves working. The reason he loves it is because it means he still matters. I also have a client in Colorado who is 95 years old and works six days per week. He has owned his business for nearly 50 years. He can no longer drive, but he is driven to work and home every day.

There are many doctors and lawyers working into their 70s and 80s. Roofers not so much.

 

[jeffrockit]

In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)

Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.

 

[editec]

It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...

Yes, in his biography he actually mentioned tht he found himself worring that we may actually pay off the national debt.

I kid you not, he wondered if the economy (which I presume to him means only wall street) would still function.

The Republican's sudden concern about the deficiet will only last as long as they think they can cut social spending.

When it comes to their own cash cows getting gored, no sacrifice to the god of pro temp fiscal responsibility will even be considered.

 

[Lovebears65]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.

Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.

The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.

The problem is that there are to many people that need help and people now know how to to work the system. I know at least 10 people that are on SSD. Of those 10 people only half really need it.. I do not think a drug addicts deserves SSD but a lot get it. I know some that just keep going to doctor to doctor to get a diagnosis that will get them SSD and laugh when they have it saying its nice to get free money . I have seen people saying they cant work but do that same thing in their home life what they supposedly cant do at work!!! Mothers who wont get off welfare because it pays more then min wage. They have more babies just so they can get more then collect earn income credits too!!!!! Unemployment benefits for 99 months is outrageous who in their right mind will look for a job when they can sit on their butt and collect money for nothing. I am not saying everyone does this but a lot do. They need to raise the age for SSI to 70 people are living longer these days. Pelosi said that food stamps will strengthen our economy ReALLY. she is so out of touch. It wont let me post the url until I made 15 post but this is part of what she said
Pelosi: Food Stamps and Unemployment Give ‘Biggest Bang for Our Buck’
October 7, 2010

 

[Londoner]

Londoner, good post.

We did not have real prosperity in the Clinton years. Newfound wealth in the investor class created investment bubbles. Credit was issued in lieu of wages to try to keep these bubbles inflated.

Of course that is a short sighted policy.

Agree 100%. Clinton Bush Greenspan used bubbles (tech > housing) to cover up a structural flaw: the greatest consumption economy in history lacked solvent consumers with solid jobs.

In the 70s, when it became clear that our postwar manufacturing dominance was over, we could have listened to Carter who said a paradigmatic shift in our materialism and consumption was necessary. Carter said we had to make do with less, and we had to unwind our omnivorous addiction to high energy (which would bite us once petrol-supplies diminished). He said a crisis in confidence and values was leading us to need more than we could afford. As a deep southern Christian, he called for a spiritual transformation to more humble consumption habits.

Reagan disagreed. He promised the American voter the candy they wanted. He told the middle class that they didn't have to make the dismal lifestyle compromises Carter laid out in his famous Malaise Speech. Reagan said we could keep on consuming like during our postwar heyday (when we manufactured real things, and had real jobs). So he increased our military investment in the middle east and lorded over the transition to a credit card economy. America would borrow its way back to prosperity. Under Reagan, America went from a creditor nation to the world's greatest borrower. Reagan laid the foundation for a 30 year consumption orgy that got so bad that we even hawked our houses.

The Great American Lifestyle Shall Make No Compromises!

Of course Clinton, the ethically challenged opportunist, kept the Reagan myth of eternal consumption going. Rather than be honest like Carter, he lied to the middle class; he promised that they could live better than their parents, but he should have urged overspent consumers to live within their means. Then, when nobody was looking, Slick Willey had Uncle Allen fuel a tech bubble to pump fake money into a terribly sick economy.

Bush 41 did more of the same until the credit and bubbles finally ran out. Now we're stuck because we don't know where the next bubble is going to come from. We are like a heroine addict without the next fix. We crave more easy money, but the easy money is gone - and so is the cheap energy that made it all possible.

We took a wrong turn in 1980. The middle class opted for "credit card consumption" and infinitely expanding living standards when it should have scaled back. We swallowed poison and now we are almost dead.

 

[peach174]

Both parties are to blame for spending more than they take in.

As for SSI - President LBJ opened up the surplus fund to pay for the Viet Nam War. Congress was suppose to have closed it back up and pay back the funds. Neither party did it. Both Dems and Repubs have been spending the surplus for 46 years with nothing but IOU's.
There would have been plenty of funds for the baby boomer's and future generations.
Then Dems added for disability (which was good) , but they did not add to the amount that was taken out of the paychecks. It should have gone up about 1 or 1/2 percent for that added program.
This is why some Repubs are trying to get SSI out of the hands of congress, so that congress from either party can't keep getting funds from the surplus.

 

[hortysir]

Why?

No need. You've been *****-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.

The facts are there in black and white. No *****-slapping happening there.

Where are these black and white facts?
Apologies if I don't take your word for it.
Link?

 

[Foxfyre]

In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)

Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.

Yep. Both parties have steadily grown the government, increased entitlements, and been fiscally irresponsible. The ONLY reason I remain registered GOP is because the GOP does it somewhat more slowly than the Democrats generally do, and I want to be able to vote in our State's primary elections.

But as long as folks look for somebody to demonize and accuse and attack on a partisanship basis, but refuse to seriously look at any issue on its own merits , we will continue to elect irresponsible people to Congress and little or nothing will be done to correct anything.

 

[boedicca]

The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.

The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.

Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.

There were over 40 taxpayers per SS recipient at the beginning of the program; now we're down to 3 to 1. In a few years, it will be 2:1.

Taxes on The Rich would have to be raised by nearly 90%, and taxes on the middle class by 60% to cover the gap. Even the Federal Government admits that entitlement programs are hurtling towards insolvency in the Annual Report published by the Treasury, which used Accrual instead of Cash Accounting.

The NPV on entitlement programs (expected receipts vs. promised beneifts) in 2010 was ($30T).

And the ugly little secret which politicians don't want the public to understand is that, even if one has paid SS taxes all of one's life, one is guaranteed nothing (even the Supreme Court said so). Congress can change the benefits and who gets them at any time.

It's NOT RETIREMENT INSURANCE. It's a generational Ponzi Scheme form of welfare.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)

Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.

Yep. Both parties have steadily grown the government, increased entitlements, and been fiscally irresponsible. The ONLY reason I remain registered GOP is because the GOP does it somewhat more slowly than the Democrats generally do, and I want to be able to vote in our State's primary elections.

But as long as folks look for somebody to demonize and accuse and attack on a partisanship basis, but refuse to seriously look at any issue on its own merits , we will continue to elect irresponsible people to Congress and little or nothing will be done to correct anything.

OK but the Dems spend money that moves back through the economy. The Repubs spend money that leaves the economy.

 

[Flopper]

They'll get it. Both sides will. When the spending causes an economic collapse. A depression so severe that starvation is an immediate threat to us all. Not the just Dems fault, not just the Repubs fault, but both of them. They will never stop spending.

The dollar will fail and that will put an end to it. I don't think the anything we can do to stop it. I think it is a done deal. It's too late.

No, if nothing is done, we don't have a depression. Inflation will erode the buying power of the dollar which could lead to hyperinflation. But don't be so pessimistic. We have a 15 trillion dollar debt but we also have a 15 trillion dollar economy. The deficit needs to to be brought down to the 1990's level, say 300 billion which is less than GDP growth. The Deficit Reduction Committee recommendation, the House's Paul Ryan plan, and I'm sure Obama's plan, TBA will do the deed. Remember the deficit can be reduced by spending cuts, which is happening, revenue increases due to the recover which is projected to last through at least 2014, and possible tax increase.

We have survived 2 world worlds, the cold war, a civil war, the great depression, and a defect at end WWII that was 100% of GDP, which is 10 times worst than our current deficit. I think any one selling America short will regret it.

I don't like to be pessimistic, But I see a stock market that's disconnected from main street. Other countries wanting to cease using the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. The Fed using 'quantitative easing' at an alarming rate. it is hard to be an optimist.
I do not see a will in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to make serious cuts. Everyone acts as if a recovery is assured. I don't think we are out of the woods yet. hyperinflation won't lead to a depression? Not necessarily, but it could.
Well, silver up another 24 cents. What the hell

The stock market is often at odds with Main Street. It is a leading indicator of the economy, reflecting what investors believe will be the state of the economy in 12 to 18 months.

Two years ago the world was rushing into US dollars. Today the world is rushing out of US dollars. A falling dollar is both good and bad. It’s good for US manufactures selling their goods abroad, but bad for importers such as Walmart. The US stock market also benefits from a falling dollar. A weak dollar brings more tourist to the US, but also makes travel abroad more expensive.

The primary reason for weakness in the US dollar is not the belief that an economic doomsday is just ahead, but rather investors and traders believe the ultra low inflation rates we have had over the last few years are at an end and the US economy will again see higher inflation as it has in the past. In 1982 inflation peaked at 14.8%. In the years before and after WWI, inflations averaged 8.7%. The inflation rate now is 2.7%, still low looking the historic averages of 4%.

I seriously doubt the US dollar will cease being a reserve currency. The reason I say that is the US happens to be at or near the top of nearly every country's trading partners which means everybody holds large numbers of US dollars. Secondly the US has a trade deficit with most of our trading partners which mean they end up with even more US dollars. In other words, the world is stuck with lots of US dollars and there isn't much they can do about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.

Yep. Both parties have steadily grown the government, increased entitlements, and been fiscally irresponsible. The ONLY reason I remain registered GOP is because the GOP does it somewhat more slowly than the Democrats generally do, and I want to be able to vote in our State's primary elections.

But as long as folks look for somebody to demonize and accuse and attack on a partisanship basis, but refuse to seriously look at any issue on its own merits , we will continue to elect irresponsible people to Congress and little or nothing will be done to correct anything.

OK but the Dems spend money that moves back through the economy. The Repubs spend money that leaves the economy.

And you see, it is really ignorant and blind ultra partisanship comments as yours here that I'm talking about. You are so brainwashed to believe such utter nonsense that you don't get past that to actually focus on the issue.

For example. Do you know why one of the world's largest corporations, General Electric, has paid no corporate taxes for the last two years? It is because they are making most of their money out of the country and the only business they're doing here is tax exempt.

Go ahead. Try to make a case that they are Republican. And good luck on that.

I would like to focus on what we can do to make it attractive to keep money IN the country instead of making it attractive to outsource jobs, production, investment. Are you capable of focusing on that?

 

[boedicca]

Obama just becomes more and more of a parody of himself:

White House officials have unveiled a taxpayers’ “Federal Tax Receipt” website to goose publicity for a week of presidential speeches on the deficit, but the online receipt hides the president’s deficit spending and conceals the growing national debt.

The site, for example, shows that a family of three earning $50,000 in 2010 paid only $19 for interest on the national debt. But interest payments actually cost the nation $197 billion in 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s roughly $657 per person, or $1,971 for a family of three, or 104 times what the White House website shows.

(snip)

The webpage, at whitehouse.gov/taxreceipt, allows people to plug in their tax payments to see how their income taxes are spent among up to 34 accounts, such as “health care,” housing assistance” or “atomic energy defense activities.”

The site obscures President Obama’s use of borrowed funds, which amounted to $1,293 billion in 2010. That federal deficit was a third of the $3,552 billion spent by the federal government, and about 50 percent more than was paid in taxes.

Read more: Obama Deficit Plan | White House releases misleading figures for families ahead of Obama's deficit tour | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

 

[auditor0007]

That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.

Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.

The funny thing about making people work longer is the idea that might make them live even longer. Retirement kills people with boredom, and I don't mean that as a joke. The other issue is that if you are married, all of a sudden you have to spend 24/7 with your life partner. While being married is great, not having to face each other 24/7 is a good thing for most, lol.

My father is turning 74 this year, and he still works a 40 hour week as a consultant. He travels and loves working. The reason he loves it is because it means he still matters. I also have a client in Colorado who is 95 years old and works six days per week. He has owned his business for nearly 50 years. He can no longer drive, but he is driven to work and home every day.

There are many doctors and lawyers working into their 70s and 80s. Roofers not so much.

I do understand that, and that is why there should be exemptions for those who are truly disabled and cannot work any longer. We actually have that now through disability.