This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
AARP Screams Bloody Murder, Warns Against Changing CPI Definition And Cuts To Social Security In Pursuing Budget Compromise
While it is unclear what precisely has given Obama confidence to announce that his meeting with congressional leaders on deficit reduction and the debt limit was "very constructive" one thing is very likely: it involved the change of the definition of CPI. As we reported some time ago, one of the serious proposals to deal with the deficit situation is to make a revolutionary actuarial adjustment and change the way the actual definition of inflation. As we reported: "Lawmakers are considering changing how the Consumer Price Index is calculated, a move that could save perhaps $220 billion and represent significant progress in the ongoing federal debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks. According to congressional aides familiar with the discussions, the proposal would shift how the Consumer Price Index is calculated to reflect how people tend to change spending patterns when prices increase. For example, consumers tend to drive less when gas prices increase dramatically. Such a move is widely seen by economists as resulting in a slower rise in inflation." Today the WSJ's Damian Paletta follows up on this ludicrous yet serious proposal: "One proposal in the budget talks that is getting a serious look from all sides would switch the government’s way of measuring inflation and delivering a big impact on tax, spending, and entitlement programs. How big? It could save roughly $300 billion over 10 years. That big. The idea of using this different measure of inflation, known as a “chained” consumer price index, has won support from numerous deficit-reduction commissions as well as many liberal and conservative economists." Yet reminding everyone that there is no such thing as a free lunch in finance, the "biggest savings—an estimated $112 billion—would be from slowing the growth in the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries." Sure enough someone is unhappy. Enter the AARP which is already screaming, justifiably, bloody murder should the administration proceed with what will be an outright slashing of Social Security obligations. "AARP will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to
pay the nation’s bills,” said Rand. “Social Security did not cause the
deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause." Did Obama's war with America's seniors just enter Defcon 1?
First, some more details on what is actively being contemplated as a "budget rescue" measure":
The idea of using this different measure of inflation, known as a “chained” consumer price index, has won support from numerous deficit-reduction commissions as well as many liberal and conservative economists.
To be sure, it’s complicated stuff. But it’s seen as a central way of reducing the deficit because it simultaneously cuts spending growth and increases tax revenues. And many also like it because much of its impact doesn’t come from “cuts” in spending. Rather, it would reduce the “growth” of spending pegged to inflation. And it would affect the way tax brackets and deductions adjust for inflation, so it could appear less like a tax increase than simply raising tax rates.
Some liberal groups and top lawmakers believe that it’s the same thing as slashing benefits and have been holding press conferences pre-emptively blasting the idea to try and keep it out of any deal. And some influential conservative groups believe the impact on taxes is tantamount to a tax increase and are likely to fight it.
Perhaps with enemies on both sides the idea just might have a chance.
Spread across the entire budget, chained CPI is a big money maker. Reducing the deficit by roughly $300 billion over 10 years would make it one of the most vital components to any deal that aims to reduce the deficit by $2 trillion to $4 trillion over that span
Simply said, the proposal, if enacted, would reduce the NPV of the future SSN liabilities which as is well known are among the biggest portion of future entitlements, and while the data adjustment would not change much in current terms, it would impact how much is obtained from the fund by future SSN recipients.
Not surprisingly, the AARP has finally understood what changing the CPI definition means. The resulting angry letter is the first response. Many more will follow.
AARP CEO A. Barry Rand this morning offered the following strong statement as key congressional leaders meet with the President today to discuss a framework for a deal to raise the debt ceiling and to address deficit reduction. AARP is focused on protecting Social Security and Medicare for the millions of beneficiaries who have paid into the systems over their working lives, and reiterates its position that Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be on the table for deficit reduction.
“AARP will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to pay the nation’s bills,” said Rand. “Social Security did not cause the deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause. As the President and Congress work to negotiate a deal to raise the debt ceiling, AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work.
“AARP is strongly opposed to any deficit reduction proposal that makes harmful cuts to vital Social Security and Medicare benefits. Social Security is currently the principal source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one third of those households depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income. The deficit debate is not the time or the place to talk about Social Security. AARP will fight any cuts that are proposed to this important program, including proposals to reduce the cost of living adjustment for beneficiaries (COLA)—such as the proposed chained CPI—which AARP also believes should not be considered as part of the debt ceiling or deficit reduction negotiations.
“AARP also strongly urges the President and congressional leaders to reject any proposals that would impose arbitrary, harmful cuts to the Medicare program or shift additional costs onto Medicare beneficiaries. Half of all beneficiaries live on incomes of less than $22,000, and many already struggle to pay for their ever-rising health and prescription drug costs.
“Some have proposed requiring Medicare beneficiaries to pay even more for their Medicare benefits, either through higher co-payments or higher premiums. AARP strongly urges you to reject higher costs for people in Medicare. Before we shift additional cost burdens onto beneficiaries, Congress should address the real problem of increasing health care costs throughout the entire system.
“Throughout the deficit reduction and debt ceiling debate, AARP will continue its efforts to raise the voices of our members who depend on Social Security and Medicare for their health and economic security,” Rand concluded.
Alas, we doubt this statement will do much to change the mind of the administration which is now openly robbing America's elderly to fund its relentless spending and specifically the uberwealthy which continues to transfer the NPV of future obligations into currently overfunded checking accounts. We wonder how long before other popular organization enjoin the protest, although we have no doubt would be.
»
- 22064 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Too bad! They are the ones that created the Frankenstein monster!
Meh... it happened on their watch, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that they created it. I mean I live in America but I'm not ready to step up and own this country's imperialistic exploits of the last decade. We're all sheeple being led the austerity slaughter... we'll all have our pound of flesh removed. The Ponzi scheme is unravelling, there will be lots of episodes like this as the monster deflates.
Right.
This is a classic dilemma particular with societies. Who to blame. We always feel we need a person to blame, and when it is convenient we are part of some group getting recognition and when its not, we suddenly aren't part of that group. We're all guilty of that one.
Nobody complained when they were flipping Florida condos, McMansions and rolling over their credit card bills to 0% teaser rates to finance their big fat asses to eat Buffalo Chicken Wings, watch WWE on their brand new 60'' flat screen HDTV while the rest of the world had to work and save to afford a home
Here'e the bit I really like. '"AARP will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to pay the nation’s bills,” said Rand. “Social Security did not cause the deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause."'
Of course the money for social security came from cloud cuckoo land, everybody knows that...
Reminds me of the scene in "Return of the King", whereupon Frodo and Gollum are struggling over the One Ring, then fall over the cliff's edge.
We know who to blame. It is everyone that has ripped off the taxpayers: Social Security, banksters, politicians, energy companies, Medicare, illegal immigrants, the list goes on.
Just wait until it STARTS to break down and the gov't tries to prevent taxpaying citizens from fleeing the country. It will look like that scene in Back to the Future II when Biff runs the show (I never imagined having to use that analogy while being serious).
Just wrote the idiots who allegedly represent me in Washington DC. You might want to write yours.
=====
Senator,
I would submit any politician who votes to defraud Social Security recipients (Federal Retirees, Military Retirees or anyone else dependent on a legitimate valid CPI calculation to adjust their COLAs appropriately upward due to continuous debasement of the US Dollar by those criminals at the Federal Reserve who print endless piles of worthless fiat paper to cover Congress' endless deficit spending and to steal the working class’ hard earned savings) may find it unsafe for them to return to their districts/states ever again.
Vote NO to this fraud. Any changes to the CPI ought to return the calculation to the methodology in place pre-Clinton, where the cost inputs actually reflected reality. Using the old methodology an honest calculation of current CPI is approximately 12% per annum, according to John Williams at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts --- not the bogus 3% or 4% the federal government claims it to be.
Seriously, senator, do not associate yourself with this fraudulent accounting gimmickry. It will come back and bite you on the ass. Voters are fed up with Washington politicians and your duplicitous, sneaky, backroom, screw-the-people bullshit.
======
AARP Screams Bloody Murder, Warns Against Changing CPI Definition And Cuts To Social Security In Pursuing Budget Compromise
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/aarp-screams-blood-murder-warns-against...
@ pegasus-you get all professional in your last paragraph. i like it.
Ha! This is what AARP gets after going along with Obamacare Death Boards.
0bama and his ilk hate old white people. They see them as racist and sucking up too many resources that could go to the welfare class that never paid into the system.
once again, Obama lurches from one CLM(*) and careening into another.
*Career-Limiting Mistake
Since you seem to think Social Security is so great, why not make it a purely voluntary system (i.e., take away the gun that Big Brother is pointing at us!)??
Our work or your (Big Brother's) guns: Choose one, you cannot have both!
I'm a the tail end of the boomers, and yes, i'm going to be on the receiving end of this. Time for the boomers to sacrifice for the next gen.
Fuck you.
+1961
By sacrifice, do you mean give up their social security that they paid into for 40 years so the generational welfare slugs can get their new townhouses, flatscreen TV's, and iphones? I see no sacrifice coming from the generational welfare class or federal government
By sacrifice I think he means the fake credit made available to 'them' so that house prices will rise for 50 years so that they can pay fake money into a false welfare system for 40 years that they couldn't afford to pay for under a real money system.
Face it, when you've been ripped off you have nothing. They paid nothing. To claim an entitlement because you paid nothing but fake money into a fraudulent system for 40 years means nothing. You lose.
Everybody loses...
Well then it shouldn't bother you at all if they take all the fake money they are currently 'spending' on the MIC and transfer it directly into SS; I mean if it is fake, why not?
because it undermines the real purchasing power of my money, which I'm trying to save for my own retirement in the knowledge that the government scheme won't cut it...
No body is going to look after me...
Well then it is real money after all. Sheesh, you need to make up your mind dude.
You can believe that if you wish...
but it won't pay your bills in retirement.
Don't worry about that 'whooshing' sound. In fact I think you'd better get used to it.
which means what?
obviously a private joke...
Harlequin--Thanks for kicking GoinFawr's ass on this. Could not have said it better myself. Sorry GoinFawr--either it's fake or it's not. If so, you should not care how much Soc Sec recipients get. If not, then Soc Sec recipients did, in fact, pay in and should not be cheated after 40 or 50 years of such payments.
Erm, can somebody uncross this guy`s wires please. He seems to be shorting out.
No, no one is going to look after you.
But, I'll give you a carrot.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/oligarchs.htm
Enjoy, and use it if you can. Ugly background, but the information is useful.
Any sacrifice by either kills them.
The latter by the nature of government -- the former by the nature that that ends in riot.
it's definitely all the chinese fault or those people who worship another religion and sit on top of our oil and resent us for redrawing their national boundaries or maybe one party's but not the others or maybe the poor people for getting public assistance. Its not our leaders, they would never sell us out.
It was the British who drew all those boundaries in Africa and Asia. Get your facts straight instead of your knee-jerk blame America for every ill in the world posting
I think he's taking the piss...
yes, I know. And you're right, they (nor should we) ever lump "us" and "the british" in the same basket especially when it comes to the history of oil development and those pesky asians and africans. I mean, just look at Iraq, its not as if we and the british ever go hand in hand.
I tell my kids I don't need to hear them blaming each other 10 * a day.
I don't need to hear governments are politicians blaming each other either.
I'll never understand humans.
Hmmm... double post...
I asked grandma about FDR and she said she cried when the news came of his death. I asked her if she thought Social Security was good and she basically was offended at the question because of course it was. If she lives long enough, she'll be moving in with us because her baby boomer kids are typical narcissistic mofos from that putrid generation.
AARP the only US citizen lobby with any real power....
the problems with entitlements is not with the citizens but bad management. How about funding 2 wars while decreasing taxes.
The people managing the funds pay huge bonuses, 2-20, for funds of funds of funds of funds of funds of funds, not to mention sell side front running rape.....but now I am venting....carry on, taking profits, covered options expiring doo daa doo daa, what losses
If you think any government program the size of Social Security would ever be even remotely properly managed, put the crack pipe down.
Edit: Although I agree that the wars have been a waste of money and I orginally supported them because I'm an idiot like everyone else. Cutting income taxes is always a good thing though.
"If you think any government program the size of Social Security would ever be even remotely properly managed, put the crack pipe down."
Only one order of magnitude off, but they're working on it. (I guess that must be some clean shit)
Hey, Norway has almost 5 mil people (two orders of magnitude diffence from the US) and discovered a bunch of oil which they've been selling during two huge spikes in price over the last 15 years. And look at the retirement fund they have! 500 billion dollars of paper. Holy shit! Thanks you fucking retarded moron if that is the best you can do.
"Holy shit! Thanks you fucking retarded moron if that is the best you can do."
Right back atcha, verbatim.
Hey, penisbreath: Look at a map of Norway. Now look at a map of the US of the same scale. See any 'orders of mergatroid' differences fucktowel?
Landmass doesn't really matter so I guess the number of people participating in the fund doesn't either? Nice strawman Obama.
Here, I'll try and make it as simple as I can so that you can understand:
If you have an acre of arable land, and I have a quarter section, who can grow more corn?
Heh, 'strawman'. To the WikiMobile with you, ASAP
LOL, oh, we're talking about food production. I thought we were talking about big government programs.
Damn, you're thick as a plank. Are you and Harlequin bowling partners? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
I don't think you realize that much of what you write is complete nonsense. I think it is due to you being a fucking retard.
and you're so smart eh, having paid into a ponzi all your life and now having nothing to live on but sour grapes.
in answer to your question 'If you have an acre of arable land, and I have a quarter section, who can grow more corn?', the answer is...
he who has most seeds...
You assume too much.
I must, seeing as you two are having so much trouble with 2+2.
GoinFawr--I am an objective observer of this debate, but I will tell you that from my perspective, Harlequin is killing you. His succinct note about "he who has the most seeds" is spot on. Once again--sorry, but he is kicking your ass.
No problem, coming from someone who has demonstrated him/herself to be totally lost on this thread already I'll take that FWIW.
Won't work with just defunding the wars. We don't have enough people in the workforce right now to cover the cost of the baby boomers' ever increasing cost to the system. SS/Medicare costs greatly outweigh the amount going in. Something is going to have to give.
when steak gets to expensive, americans eat ground beef
when ground beef gets too expensive, americans eat ipads
when ipads get too expensive, americans eat shit
its about time for the entitlement generation to eat shit
shoulda saved some money while they had the chance
serves them right for believing a govt run program could be run right, and forever at that
agreed, stupid to rely on the guvMINT for your future
GuvMINT can't provide a future, only you can do that...
Too many people think the guvMINT can do anything at all but take and redistribute...
He said while utilizing about ten services, and infrastructure, built by former generations fake tax dollars. In hindsight, maybe you're right; perhaps it is a shame that your parents had access to clean drinking water.
lol!
Hey look another Huffington Post moron preaching the greatness of big government. It is too bad I work for the government and see the ingrained culture of waste and uselessness everyday. If not for that and having a brain, I might have gone full retard like you.
Great argument, did your dog shit it? Or did you just cough it up into your own ass?
GoinFawr,
and so you changed your argument again...
what has this got to do with a failed social security system?
About as much as this:
"Too many people think the guvMINT can do anything at all but take and redistribute..."
in light of this:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020824.shtml
I 'changed my argument again'? How so?
you keep trying to send me on these bullshit links.
Your arguments should stand on their own shouldn't they, or do you now need to rely on someone else again as you seem to have done all your life in a grand plan that has led you to being penniless in old age.
at some point you should learn, I'm sure...
You're hearing that whooshing sound again, I can tell.
Then I'd suggest getting the guns and starting to open fire, because that's the only way this ends -- at one point or another.
You may be right, darkstar, but I sure hope not. Only the radical Left or fascists win in such a scenario, as they are the only ones willing to wield the power necessary to restore order at the expense of liberty and property. You are describing late 18th C France and 1920s-30s Germany. Neither experiment turned out well for anyone. So, to avoid your presumed outcome, what must we do?
You make it sound like payments just started going into the fund yesterday. What happened to all the money they put into SS working like dogs until they were 65? Give that back to the seniors in a lump sum, and then we can talk.
@johnQpubic:
"Yeah I know, you think you're going to be six years old for the rest of your life."-Bill Watterson
"...shoulda saved some money while they had the chance"
They did, stupid, in fact they were forced to, every single paycheque. I guess you'd rather the banks got all the benefits of their hard work, 'cause that's what this is all about dumbass. So yeah, if you make an investment you are entitled to the benefits guaranteed, especially when you had no choice in making it.
"serves them right for believing a govt run program could be run right..."
But wait: Oh look, johnQpubic doesn't know something, what a shock
That gov't program looks successful enough to me, maybe if you could take your head out of your ass for just a second you could see beyond your 'will-nots'.
I know, I know: you like to push around the weak and defenceless, you think it's the American way. Idiot.
"What happened to all the money they put into SS working like dogs until they were 65?"
It was spent. There is no money left to return to the seniors. Perhaps they should have been screaming at the politicians when they were spending the money rather than saving it.
'Spent' should be 'stolen', which means it is still owed. SS legislation is quite clear on what the fund can be used for.
"Perhaps they should have been screaming at the politicians when they were spending the money rather than saving it"
And who says they weren't? You?
"And who says they weren't? You?"
Clearly it had no effect. Anyone who has been paying attention could forsee this outcome.
The Supreme Court stated the following, (from Wikipedia):
"To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610–611."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Social_Security_%28United...
i.e. there is no contractual agreement with SS and Congress reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal SS at will.
Sorry to say it, but who was stupid enough to believe that they would get anything from SS when Congress specifically reserved the right to abolish it at any point in time?
"There is no money left to return to the seniors."
TARP, TALF, ZIRP, ZALF, TIRP, DERP, QE-1234567, a trillion per year for jolly green giants with guns to run around the world dipping their wicks in hornets' nests on behalf of private companies: Hunh. Coulda fooled me!
Which was all funded via deficit spending. Again, there is no money left.
Hey pal, in case you hadn't noticed: show's still on. In fact, I think I can count on my hands the years that the US didn't run a deficit (and tallying the years the national debt was entirely paid off is even easier). So, once again, really it all boils down to a matter of priorities.
OTOH I am starting to get a better idea whose boots you've been well trained to polish/lick.
it is the strangest "trust fund" ever.
http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/24/saving-social-security-episode
All you need to know about this so-called "Trust" fund!
GoinFawr, 'What happened to all the money they put into SS working like dogs until they were 65?'. It wasn't real money and it wasn't invested. It was given to those in a position to take it, just as is the case with any other ponzi. If there is any justice in America, all the seniors who took benefits in the last six years should now have it reclaimed as was the case with the Madoff 'investment'.
'Give that back to the seniors in a lump sum, and then we can talk.' If you didn't put real money in you can't take real money out, and if it's gone, it's gone.
@johnQpubic: "...shoulda saved some money while they had the chance"
'They did, stupid, in fact they were forced to, every single pay cheque... So yeah, if you make an investment you are entitled to the benefits guaranteed, especially when you had no choice in making it.' I'm struggling to see how this is different to any other investor that put his/her money into a fraudulent investment scheme, even if it is run by the government.
'That gov't program looks successful enough to me...' Not sure how this can be called successful in any way if it needs multi trillion dollar bailouts to avoid telling you it's worthless for just a few months or years. It's still worthless.'I know, I know: you like to push around the weak and defenceless, you think it's the American way.' Not sure anyone wants to push around the weak and defenceless, but someone has to deal with the simple fact that you've been had, and far too few of the older generation even tried to do anything to stop it, and not just in America either...
I simply hate it when I have to repeat myself. I notice you didn't splice this one into your inanity:
"Hey pal, in case you hadn't noticed: show's still on. In fact, I think I can count on my hands the years that the US didn't run a deficit (and tallying the years the national debt was entirely paid off is even easier). So, once again, really it all boils down to a matter of priorities."
That last word is the most important; got it now?
Also,
"That gov't program looks successful enough to me..." Me
"Not sure how this can be called successful in any way if it needs multi trillion dollar bailouts to avoid telling you it's worthless for just a few months or years. It's still worthless. " You
Either you missed the link, or you are the missing link. Just in case I'm wrong in my guess about which it is, here it is again:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020824.shtml
Now that is what I call a prime example of a successfully run gov't 'program'.
And finally,
"If you didn't put real money in you can't take real money out, and if it's gone, it's gone."
Maybe the 'money' wasn't real, but the work put in to earn it was as real as your domelessness, wonderboy. And that is worth something. Certainly worth risking making SS one of the very very last places to consider funding (fake or otherwise) cuts of any stripe, eg. abracadabraing CPI. I've offered alternatives, but I've got real money on my flank that says you're not interested.
Regards
LOL, come on guys. Just look at how Norway saved oil profits. I mean, if they can do that, the US Federal government, which can't wipe its own ass anymore, can make socialism work. What more proof do you people need?
I believe it's known as a 'mixed economy', not 'schmeeeealism', unless of course you really really like listening to old Ronald Reagan vinyl, in which case there is probably no one on the planet who can help you.
Otherwise, I find your defeatism disheartening. I gave you a working example of a successful economy and the best rebut you have is that you have been too stupid, apathetic or duped as a nation to elect a politician who is capable of performing his own toilet? (Since 1996, too)
I mean I know the US has never in it's history had a high enough ratio of natural resources per capita to allow such a fund to develop (sarc), but don't even do me the courtesy of actually considering the mechanics of such a wildly successful but, apparently in your view, unrealistic proposition. Even though it is only unrealistic because of the indoctrinated pigheaded ignorance of you and your ilk, mind you, not because it is actually impossible.
The other alternative was to not go around selling weapons to everyone and his dog so that your MIC could keep itself flush with soft targets, and the contracts alive and moving. Are you paying attention or just pulling my leg?
'domelessness' is paying into a ponzi scheme all your life and then whining about why you have no money, and then trying to justify why everybody else should make up your loss with all these irrelevent arguments, .
So wonderboy, if being 'domeless' means I keep my money whilst you starve, then I'll take the hit anyday, and my money too of course...
But what about essential government services that the big government (not local government) provides? Like water, oh, nope, I mean fire dep... uh no, that's local, I mean pol....wait not that either, I mean schools kinda, of course they suck mostly because of big government interference but um, oh, I found one, anti-smoking campaigns for the LGBT community (this is an actual fucking federally funded program http://www.lgbttobacco.org/). Yeah, you wouldn't have that so good luck making it without an anti-smoking campaign targeted at the LGBT community. All the AIDS spreading fags and trannies you rely on would die of lung cancer in your lunatic libertarian world! Ha!
What makes you think I rely on 'AIDS spreading fags and trannies'?
My 'lunatic libertarian world' is the one where I pay for what I use and expect nothing from the State except the ability to go and get it. For once you do actually hint at common sense when you refer to essential services such as defence, policing and all other services that one needs to protect a business and assets. Nowhere in this argument is there room for welfare which costs me to pay to you, and that seems to be the one fundamental argument that you have missed/ chosen to ignore all your life and is the reason you and the country are in such dire straits now...
Every business has expenses, but welfare should not be one of them.
You were up too late. That was a joke making fun of the idea that big government provides essential services. It doesn't. Local government funded by property taxes does. Big government gives you stuff like the anti-smoking campaign which is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Thought it would be obvious it was a joke but really most arguments from that side are that dumb so it is hard to tell.
And lord was it funny too, but mostly the part where even your bowling partner couldn`t get it.
"That was a joke making fun of the idea that big government provides essential services."
All empirical evidence to the contrary, he blithely carries on. Of course realizing this would require you looking past your own screen door, which I know you are loathe to do, so I am certainly not holding my breath.
neither are you making much sense... again.
"I gave you a working example of a successful economy..."
No, you regurgitated some shit that your owners pumped inside your stomach while they said throwing it up demonstrates your intelligence. They left out the part that Norway's great governance was helping the people literally starve before oil took off. Guess which direction oil production is going now? And this is all undeniable proof that big government will work in the US despite the overwhelming pile of empirical evidence in the US (you know, the fucking country that is totally different from Norway) to the contrary. You have no clue.
"They left out the part that Norway's great governance was helping (sic) the people literally starve before oil took off."
So they took action... that undeniably bettered the lot for their people... and this is your idea of, uh...failure?
<scratches head>Well, I guess you're right then, no one can argue with that sort of, um... reasoning; or at least it's obviously not worth the bother.
WTF, I'll give it a go: So after 31 years of hardcore privatization and trade 'liberalization' (read:offshoring production) and financial/industrial deregulation (for the biggest and baddest, anyway), tens of millions lined up for snap cards is...aahhh, success? Am I doing it right Tarsy?
'big Big BIG' gov't? Nah, I'm just a proponent of fiscal responsibility, and see SWF's as one in a number of possible means to that end. Seriously, I think you have me confused with one of your 'strawmen'.
Tell me again why a successfully managed SWF would have zero benefits for the oh so very different US? I must have missed that part.
"Tell me again why a successfully managed SWF would have zero benefits for the oh so very different US? I must have missed that part."
This question assumes that an SWF could be successfully set up, let alone managed, in the US. That is stupid because the US being the wealthiest country cannot rely on others for national defense and use the money instead to pay off the debt and for an SWF; it is unlikely that the US will magically discover a new huge source of an expensive natural resource to pay off the debt and for an SWF as Norway did; and there is 100 years of US (not Norway) history which says an SWF run by the feds will quickly become a ponzi for the feds to raid in order to pay for programs that aim at stopping queers from smoking fags.
Oh, so it's not that it wouldn't have benefits, it's that it can't be done because you say so?
What a dreary, hopeless, dystopia you've fashioned for yourself, no wonder you're such a jealous embittered cynic. You must hate yourself too, I'm guessing.
"Courage my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place." T Douglas
Bonne Chance!
Yeah, there is all kinds of real world evidence that says it is a stupid idea but that is no match for more hopium to believe in. That's your ace in the hole? What a fucking retard.
"Yeah, there is all kinds of real world evidence that says it is a stupid idea"
I guess real world success isn't evidence enough for a pillock like you. Why am I not surprised?
And another thing. Even in Norway where conditions were perfect for an SWF, as oil production decreases the SWF will be drawn down by the same government that helped people starve before oil and ultimately go bankrupt. It is just a temporary program to soften the blow of decreased oil production. 60% of the fund is in stocks for fucks sake. It is totally not applicable to the US and you are a fucking retard for thinking so.
"...same government that helped people starve..."
hahaha! Again? I let it slide the first time, but what a fucking moron you are; 'helped people starve' give me a break. Can't you even just try to make an ounce of sense?
Tell you what, when Norway goes broke I'll admit you have a point other than the one on top of your head, ok?
"...the SWF will be drawn down by the same government that helped people starve before oil and ultimately go bankrupt"
Yah, in your twisted dreams asswipe. Call me when it happens. Jealous prick, eat your fucking heart out. I love what their success does to your type.
Time for another 50 amp fuse buddy.
GoinFawr, I simply hate it when you keep repeating yourself.
'I notice you didn't splice this one into your inanity:
"Hey pal, in case you hadn't noticed: show's still on. In fact, I think I can count on my hands the years that the US didn't run a deficit (and tallying the years the national debt was entirely paid off is even easier). So, once again, really it all boils down to a matter of priorities.
The show is over and you can bang the priorities drum all you like. It is a matter of solvency. This is what happens when you 'can count on my hands the years that the US didn't run a deficit'. Now it's time to pay for those deficits.
And anyone who thinks you should leave yourself undefended or even under defended so you can pay welfare should be removed from the gene pool. History should have taught you that.
"Now it's time to pay for those deficits."
Wow, you sure talk big when it's granny you're throwing under the bus for a whopping 30 billion/year deficit reduction. Yeah, that should buy you some time! Only 1.57 trillion to go!
America: you are indeed in for a right rogering with gallant heroes like these making up your population. <Banksters dance>
Throwing granny under the bus? None of you fucking worthless liberals are going to let them into your houses. You'd just send 'em to the death panel for end of life counseling. And oh what a great job your government programs have done in taking care of them. Fuck, you've already thrown granny under the bus.
Thanks for the sweeping generalization. Oh how I can't wait for the anecdotes and testimonials you'll march out to 'prove' your point, like the healing powers of a Q-ray bracelet.
OTOH, did you have anything relevant to add?
No? Surprise, surprise.
It's got nothing to do with grannies and buses, the problem is solvency, and the governments attempts to cover it, or the lack of it up...
No such thing as 'insolvent' when you have a printing press, just ask the banks who get priority when it comes to access.
Sadly that's not an argument that works...
It sure as fuck does for the banksters, boyo.
Mo it fuckin' doesn't, old stick...
So since you seem to think that deficits don't matter, why doesn't the federal government just stop collecting taxes and pay everything as deficit spending? For that matter, why don't they just pay every U.S. Citizen $100,000 a year as well. That would solve everything right?
What a ridiculous argument.
Yeah, I never said that. Though judging by the US's track record, deficits don't seem to be much of a concern seeing as there are only a handful of years where there wasn't one (and in 2000 wasn't that 'surplus' hocus pocus'd off of SS payments?). I mean, if fiscal responsibility was a concern don't you think the US would have tried to pay off its national debt, at least once?
Don't put words in my mouth.
No, but you were implying it as you keep saying that deficits "don't seem to be much of a concern." You haven't stated a level at which you think deficits or national debt do become a concern. In my opinion it is a concern now as the debt is absorbing nearly 20% of tax receipts to pay for interest. What if we had that $400 billion in interest expense available to pay for actual services? That would also go a long way toward resolving the other fiscal problems.
The issue is not the absolute size of the national debt, the issue is cash flow. Accounting gimmicks can hide a lot of things, but cash flow is all that matters in the end. When interest expense as a percent of tax revenue continues to increase due to expansion of the federal debt and/or increase in interest rates, eventually we run into the problem where large portions of tax revenues are used to pay the interest expense, leaving even less available to pay for actual government services.
See Greece for an example of what happens to the budget when the market suddenly decides that it wants 6% interest rather than 3% interest to fund government debt.
I see they've somehow managed to secure funding 'til 2013. Well, I guess that deflection is off the table for awhile; time to turn on the PIIS.
"Hey pal, in case you hadn't noticed: show's still on."
How about a simple question? Lets say you make $100,000 a year in after tax income, then you borrow and spend another $75,000 a year, and your current total debt is $700,000 with a 3% interest rate. How long can you stay solvent?
The answer to this question is also the answer to "How long can the federal government remain solvent?"
It is not a mater of priorities it is a matter of solvency. Deficits are sustainable only when they increase at or below the rate of GDP growth. You clearly are ignoring basic economic reality here.
If you would happly see the federal government default on its debt (which will force a balanced budget) or destroy the U.S. dollar via inflation, then please continue to ignore economic reality. Either way, SS, medicare and lots of other things are going to see big cuts in either real or effective benefits.
With that said, SS is not the main problem and can probably be resolved. The elephant in the room is medicare, where costs are increasing much faster than GDP. Medcare cannot be sustained as is. It is mathematically impossible to do so.
"How about a simple question? Lets say you make $100,000 a year in after tax income, then you borrow and spend another $75,000 a year, and your current total debt is $700,000 with a 3% interest rate. How long can you stay solvent?" OOOO a test, cool. Ok, now let me see here, hmmm... Am I a capitalism loving private household or did I make that 1oo large as a certain group of banks?
How about a simple question?
So when do all the foreign military bases get closed and all the troops come home? I mean, if it has nothing to do with 'priorities' and it's all about 'solvency'.
"With that said, SS is not the main problem and can probably be resolved. The elephant in the room is medicare, where costs are increasing much faster than GDP. Medcare cannot be sustained as is. It is mathematically impossible to do so."
With that said, it was mathematically impossible for certain banks to remain afloat in 2008, and yet....I mean, if it has nothing to do with 'priorities' and it's all about 'solvency'.
Regards
BTW, the answer to the question depends on a lot of things, but every year "free cash flow" is declining due to the added interest expense which causes the deficit to run away from income, even when spending is maintained at constant levels. Eventually the interest expense eats up the entire yearly income and you file bankruptcy.
Numbers please? Eliminating the entire defense budget only reduces the federal budget deficit to 15%. That is still a $700 billion a year deficit (far beyond the sustainable level) and does nothing to resolve the medicare problem.
No it wasn't "mathematically impossible for certain banks to remain afloat in 2008". You have learned nothing from the previous banking crises experienced over the past 30 years.
It seems that you would declare victory if SS was fully funded, while the rest of the federal budget causes either default or raging inflation. I'm looking at the bigger picture, not just SS benefits.
700 billion, wow you 'officially' low-balled that one didncha? Numbers, puhlease.
"No it wasn't "mathematically impossible for certain banks to remain afloat in 2008" lol! It sure as hell was without access to a printing press. I guess we just gave (sorry, ZIRP'd, TARP'd, etc) them a cool few trillion, and FASB'd the accounting rules to 'mark to skypie' for them, well, because they're so darn sweet to us <wipes tear>, and we simply couldn't bear the thought of them not making their bonuses.
Knock a trillion/year (I still think the true unofficial number would make that a lowball est. yet) MIC welfare off the books and suddenly the problems facing medicare and SS wouldn't look near so bad, and the deficit would be substantially less. As opposed to 30 or so billion/year less. Did I mention that I can count on my hands the number of years the US has not run a deficit? Or are you just being bullheaded and ignoring that?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.svg
Pff! So what, we've always had a deficit!
And what a good idea to completely get rid of the military to allow the continued funding of the SS and Medicare ponzi. Of course! Why didn't I think of that!
Because you're a violent creep who would rather spend the lion's share of your country's budgets creating soft target enemies to enable the self perpetuation of the MIC?
Damn those irresponsible kids, if they wanted to have parents they should've thought about how they were going to look after them when they get old!
"700 billion, wow you 'officially' low-balled that one didncha? Numbers, puhlease."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_public_debt
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/2010_United_States_federa...
Actual increase in debt 2009 to 2010: 1.653 trillion.
FY 2010 DoD budget: $663 billion. (I did a ballpark calculation 25% of $3.5 trillion ~ $800 billion DoD spend and assumed $1.5 tril deficit previously.)
Subtract the two and we end up with a $1 trillion deficit. If the $1.2 trillion deficit projection is correct for this year, then we are still at a $500 billion deficit eliminating the entire DoD buget. I suspect that $1.2 trillion will be low though, so split the difference and we are at $750 billion like I said before. (National defense is one of the few responsibilities actually explicitly given to the federal government by the way.)
Re: banks, papering over the losses is exactly what happened previously, just not as explicitly as is being done now. It is the Fed's default modus operandi, and given that the Fed is owned by the banking cartel, we should expect nothing less. I didn't support it, they should have all gone bankrupt.
As I said before, sustainable debt growth must be at or below the growth of GDP. For 2010, interest on the national debt was $413 billion, almost 20% of tax receipts went to pay the interest. Assuming 3% GDP growth, a sustainable deficit is $14.4 trillion times 3% or $432 billion. Deficits higher than this and/or an increase in interest rates will cause more revenues to be spent on interest, thus causing a further deficit increase. Interest expense numbers are from here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
So can we agree that the "end the wars" argument, even assuming a 50% reduction in the DoD buget, only gets us about 33% of the way to a sustainable deficit this year? All while doing nothing to resolve the huge pig called medicare.
"...$500 billion deficit eliminating the entire DoD buget. (National defense is one of the few responsibilities actually explicitly given to the federal government by the way.)"
Ahhh, if it only was defense, hey?
Pardon me, but a 500 billion deficit, while still egregious, is a helluva lot lighter than 3 times that amount, no?
"Re: banks, papering over the losses is exactly what happened previously, just not as explicitly as is being done now. It is the Fed's default modus operandi. I don't support it, they should have all gone bankrupt."
I didn't say you supported it, I said if it had to be spent propping up anything through the 2008 crisis, mainstreet would have been the far, far better option as far as ROI. Could have been much less even, but we'll never know now.
"Where are you coming up with $1 trillion in mic?" 663 billion plus whatever didn't make the books. I admit that's pure conjecture, yet I don't have much doubt about the figure, given the magnitude of lies the US citizenry is forced to swallow on a daily basis.
As for the rest: I understand compounding interest, but thanks for the lesson anyway. Really, I agree that the US is so far in it's utterly hopeless. I'm just saying that starting with granny isn't going to do anything at all except further enrich the banksters who got you here in the first place. I gurantee you those zeroes will still come off everybody's cheques, but it will go directly into the pockets of the LLLLoyd's of the world rather than into fresh cat food for pensioners. And I don't think its better spent on bravely killing mountain goat herders' wives by remote control, either. America has to default and let the chips fall where they may (which I know would likely be hardest on the weakest, but for a shorter time than the long drawn out 'austerity' where the remnants of all wealth funnel into our bankster 'friends'), or they should eat their wealthy who have stolen their country out from under them.
Regards
Sorry, I edited my previous post out from under you... but I do agree with your conclusions.
The politicians are unable and unwilling to fix anything. This thing is going to blow up one way or another, either via default or inflation. I suggest everyone prepare accordingly.
Right right right. Decent you are.
PS
Not to reopen old wounds, but has it occurred to you to look into why medicare costs are rising so rapidly? (Hint: think overpriced drugs and egregiously outdated patent laws.)
Oh, and the 'boot-polishing' snark, I was obviously wrong about that. Appy polly logies.
Yes I agree. That backs up one of my primary beliefs that government regulation and programs tend to cause much more harm than good, but it does nothing to actually resolve medicare problem.
Erm, I thought 'patent laws' protected private property. You seem to be promoting a double standard here.
What's the per capita uninsured in Canada? Or Scandinavia? Germany? Hell, even Cuba. They all have world class health care, despite all propaganda to the contrary.
"Sorry to say it, but who was stupid enough to believe that they would get anything from SS"
Who gives a fuck about the supreme court decision? I don't. This will be settled in the court of public elections. I'm waiting for a politician, any politician, to step up on this one. They'll be toast in short order.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, they were just quoting the Social Security Act as passed by Congress. Congress never promised anything.
This will be settled by economic reality.
Mother Nature bats last, and she swings some BIG LUMBER!
Well, I for one will thank God the day all the foreign occupations on behalf of private interests end and all the troops come home down to the last man 'in the rear with the gear' (I don't ask, so I'm not told); and I'm a secular humanist for Christ's sake!
I can agree with you on this sentiment. :-)
Maybe you're expecting people to disagree with you but there aren't many Republican shills here for commie shills to argue with. Sorry.
No, but there sure are a lot of useful idiots like you who play right into the hands of their enemies because of some outdated ideological dogma they've swallowed whole.
"This will be settled by economic reality."
The decisions will be made by politicians as the marketplace is dead.
Really? So whatever is happening in Greece, Ireland and Iceland has nothing to do with the marketplace?
Only if being attacked by financial terrorists is your idea of 'free markets'. Otherwise my answer to your question is 'Yes'.
How is Iceland doing these days anyway? And why is Britain still harbouring the banksters Iceland wants to prosecute?
Please stop it.
Social Security money was not stolen. It was not spent. It was taken in the front door from workers and sent out the back door to retirees... exactly as it always has been, exactly as it was designed to do.
The years we ran a SS surplus, we invested the money... just like the law says. The law prohibited investing in anything other that government bonds. so that is what they did. They lent it to the treasury in exchange for an IOU. That is called "investing in government bonds".
I've said it before in here, and I'll say it again and again until everybody gets it: YOU NEVER PAID SS TAXES TOWARDS YOUR OWN RETIREMENT. You paid for current retirees, And when your time comes to retire, every penny of your SS check will come from that time's workers.
Social Security is not a savings account. It is not an annuity. It is not an investment account. IT IS JUST A TRANSFER PROGRAM.
Correct. Except we have a minor problem where the "investments" are not marketable debt and as such are not truly investments.
You say that as if you don't fully support all the military actions against third world countries we've been able to fund
with SS IOU money.
You are correct of course. And that doesn't even get into the whole issue of government bonds in general -- can they ever truly be considered an investment? From an individual's perspective, I guess they can be, but from a holistic point of view? Since they do not purchase any underlying asset and are just promises to extract future taxes from future workers to pay off the promised future payout, they really are just time-shifted tax transfers.
a bond is not an investment, it is a debt.
we usually refer to debts as liabilities, not investments...
Who gives a fuck if the investments are marketable or not? It's irrelevant.
Because the "bonds" can not be directly sold to fund SS expenses. The bonds must be paid for out of tax revenues or the Treasury must sell additional bonds for the funding.
However, in case you missed the news recently, it appears that the Treasury may have not paid interest on trust fund "bonds", per the treasury numbers, as doing so would have caused the debt limit to be exceeded. So are you sure these "bonds" are the same as any other Treasury bond?
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11063000.pdf
To expand this non-marketable argument, say the SS trust fund has $2 trillion in bonds maturing in 2040. How do they fund a $1 trillion liability due by 2020? Only if the bonds mature at or prior to the liabilities is the "non-marketable" issue irrelevant.
Also, since these "bonds" are now funded by deficit spending, what happens to interest rates when the treasury sells actual bonds to fund the trust fund bonds? What happens to federal interest expense and thus the federal deficit?
"The bonds must be paid for out of tax revenues."
That's right. No need to involve the marketplace at all. BTW in case you haven't noticed the market is dead. It is an ex-parrot. The FED and the Treasury department run the show now. Pay me, bitch.
So when there are no tax revenues to pay the bonds (which is always the case when there are deficits), where does the money come from?
Do you think there is a few trillion in cash floating around that people have available to invest into additional Treasury bonds?
Relax BR, these two seem to think circumlocution is an actual argument, we'll have them licking each other's wounds in no time.
Really? I will be happy to sell you a bond only redeemable to Martians.
yes, and that's legal theft. SS is not volentary, the legality of one generation being forced to pay for the largesse of another also rests on very dubious legal grounds. And lets not forget inflation which of course will erode nearly or more likely all of what people plan to recieve when they themselves retire.
Anyway, the baby boomers deserve a horrible retirement. Let them have a does of free market realism before they croak.
Perhaps they should have been screaming at the politicians when they were spending the money rather than saving it.
Most senior citizens believe all the money they paid into SS over the years is still in the "trust fund", so they had no reason to scream.
Very few know it was all spent and replaced with IOUs, and month-by-month benefits are paid out of the general fund.
I suspect AARP has never mentioned this.
It is simple. Stop using the SS fund for other uses. Raise the contribution income limit higher than the 104K income cap. With 2% receiving nearly 40% of of national income, fund would be more than adequate to pay pensions. And in a few years, enough funds to stop all collections.
Exactly, SS should be employed like a Sovereign Wealth fund, as originally intended.
Eveyone here knows why the banksters don't like countries to have SWF's, right?
(Hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with 'Russialism', or whatever their conditioning is prompting you to call it nowadays)
Social Security was never a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Who told you that whopper?
"...intended."
When SS was conceived the term 'Sovereign Wealth Fund' didn't exist, to my knowledge. But roses still smell nice if you call them something else, no?
And you didn't answer my question.
Since it was founding, SS was nothing but a transfer program... from those working to those retired. Period. Full Stop.
It never was designed to accumulate/invest assets for future liabilities.
And what question?
"It never was designed to accumulate/invest assets for future liabilities."
True the system was pay as you go, until the thieves raised the payroll tax in 1983 to create a "trust fund"? Remember the "lock box"? Define "trust fund" for us?
So it's moved on to outright misinformation now. Thanks for stepping in to clear the air BR.
"...never..." indeud.
@ sloth:
"Eveyone here knows why the banksters don't like countries to have SWF's, right?"
Hey stumpy, give it up. You already lost this debate. You have no facts, just wishful thinking and a fictional, rosy image of what you think SS used to be.
You know nothing about Social Security. It was never anything like a sovereign wealth fund. It never was designed to accumulate assets. That was added later, and they were fake assets to boot. They were just promises of future taxes, taken from a different account, and transferred over to SS. No investment made. No real assets acquired. Just an IOU.
Christ... why do I bother arguing with blind little stooges?
"You have no facts, just wishful thinking and a fictional, rosy image of what you think SS used to be."
Not fictional, that was your version my 'never-never but later-on' friend; and not "used to be", could have been.
Fact: Every paycheque SS is deducted
Fact: The worker who had the dollars deducted from their paycheque did so without a choice, and under the impression that this money would come back to them in the form of SS when they retire, so
Fact: That worker has a right to recoup at least a portion of their forced investment, swindled or not.
By Christ, you're a great example of why you're going to get the self-fulfilling nightmare you're dreaming of.
Also, you've still avoided answering the question, Claire.
'It is simple. Stop using the SS fund for other uses. Raise the contribution income limit higher than the 104K income cap. With 2% receiving nearly 40% of of national income, fund would be more than adequate to pay pensions. And in a few years, enough funds to stop all collections.' - But this only works if money retains its value, which it clearly doesn't, and when it doesn't and interest rates have to rise to make it attractive again then the assets in which it is invested fail and the system doesn't work, never did.If you invest your pot in commodities then inflation booms, prices rise and there is no way the fund can keep up with rising prices anyway...
How do you save your capital, ask today's payers to not only fund today's retirees but to also put sufficient capital into the pot so that their children, grandchildren and great grand children can live the life of Riley for free. You have to be some kind of guy to want to be paying in to that one...
'Exactly, SS should be employed like a Sovereign Wealth fund, as originally intended.'
Was it ever intended to be a fund? Many systems were only ever established to be a transfer mechanism due to the high capital costs of setting them up from day 1. What SS should be employed to do and what it was employed to do are two entirely different things. One you would have balked at paying for due to cost and the other was guaranteed to fail in the end. Which did you choose when you had the choice?
Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, designed by thieves, from day one.
If you know the system was designed as pay-as-you-go (as you admit), and if you know that the twin fictions called "the trust fund" and "the lock box" were created by thieves, why are you down-dinging my posts? I bring only the truth. Apparently you choose to continue believing fairy tales.
Pretending Social Security was anything other than doomed-from-the-start Ponzi is pointless.
Pretending that congress "stole" the trust fund is cripplingly stupid. We the people insisted it be "invested"... but not in stocks, only in "safe" government bonds. And that is just what they did.
Pretending that Social Security was ever a sovereign wealth fund, a savings system, a pension system, or anything else other than a transfer program is self delusion. It is what it is... what it's always been: A Ponzi scheme where the first in get a great return and everyone else gets less and less... until it goes negative. Then it get unpopular, and eventually the money-losers outnumber the money-makers and it is abandoned. People get shafted, as in every Ponzi... government sanctioned or not.
The SS money was invested in the government and its power to tax. When you purchase a treasury bill, that's what you are buying. Well the government is still here, and can still tax, so the means of paying for SS still exists.
Let's be clear: you're going to get taxed. It is just a question of where the money goes: to the military industrial complex for more war, to the bankers to keep them alive or to yyour fellow citizens who'll spend the money right here in the USA.
Do you understand that regardless of tax rates, governments only end up collecting a maximum of about 20% of GDP in tax revenues?