that the SS program can be stabilized without significant and prompt
action to address the underlying imbalances. Failure to deal with the
problem in a timely way will result in a systemic problem for the US
economy in less than ten years.
While there are a number of proposals to address the imbalances, there
really are only two possible out comes. Either the 60-70% of the baby
boomer population who are highly dependent of SS are going to have the
benefits cuts, or younger workers are going to have to dig into their
pocket to pay for the Boomers for the next 30 years.
Bottom line; either a significant portion of seniors are going to be eating cat food, or the next few generations are going to be paying (unfairly) through the nose.
I have not written one of these critical pieces without getting a bunch
of complaints from the big guns who support SS (as it is) and maintain
that what I am saying is just bunk. They are wrong, I’ve been right all along.
Charles Blahous, the Public Trustee for the SS Trust Fund gave testimony (Link) to the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday. I think he laid it on the line rather nicely.
The 2011 Trustees’ report is the first in which Public Trustees have ever participated to have concluded that an era of permanent annual deficits has been reached.
This is important. It’s all you need to know. SS has turned a corner. It
is headed south. It will continue to head south as far as the broader
economy is concerned for the next 75 years (actually SS is in perpetual deficit).
Social
Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010
for the first time since 1983. This deficit stood at $49 billion last
year and is projected to be $46 billion in 2011.
These are not small numbers. The $100b shortfall in 2010-11 is a fairly
big burden given that the rest of the government’s finances are in such a
hole. Blahous said something that may have been a “tell” as to what we are looking at in the future with these deficits:
This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
Blahous is not following the SS “script” with this comment. These are the projected deficits based on the SSTF annual report:
Note that the “projected” annual deficits remain fairly small all the
way out to 2018. So what is Blahous referring to regarding big deficits
post 2014? SS provides an alternate forecast that they call the
“High-Cost” analysis. This chart looks at the two forecasts together.
For Blahous to suggest to Congress that the deficits will be “growing rapidly”
post 2014 represents (to me) that the real thinking inside of SS is
that the actual results will be closer to the worst case scenario.
Should that be the result, the cumulative deficit at SS from 2011
through 2020 will be a very lumpy $900 billion.
My own review of the numbers says that we have little chance of achieving even the results of the high cost analysis. It is likely to be much worse than that.
The problem is that the economy is simply not producing enough jobs.
There are fewer workers contributing to the system. The SSTF is
anticipating “a strengthening economy”, I see no evidence of this today
and have no expectation for a turnaround in the jobs picture any time
over (at least) the next five years. The following graph says it all on
payrolls in America. The recession killed us. As of today the number of
workers contributing to SS is less than it was in 2000. Look at this at
you will understand the problem.
I think that Blahous made some important comments. One’s that will shut up the defenders of SS. The argument that those defenders repeatedly use is that SS does not impact the current deficit. That is flat out wrong:
Social
Security operations are currently adding to the unified federal deficit
and will add substantially more in the years to come.
The facts folks. SS is adding to the annual budget deficit ($116b in
2011). It is adding to our funding deficit (the amount we need to borrow
from the Public). That number was a manageable $49b in 2010 but it will
grow every year from now on. In less than a decade it will become
unmanageable.
Blahous spoke about the “Assets” of the SSTF. The believers in SS constantly point to the huge $2.6T surplus at SS and say: “There is plenty of money in the piggy bank. There is no need to mess with SS today”. That is not the case at all.
If we look at the bonds from the perspective of the Trust Funds, they are assets. If we look at them from the perspective of the unified federal budget, they are a net wash, as are the interest payments that they receive.
Folks, there are no Assets in the Trust Fund. There are pieces of paper
to be sure. But they are just pieces of paper. The merely represent
claims on future taxpayers.
The following words are, I think, critical to the debate on SS:
The costs that will be borne by younger generations will grow significantly each year that a new cohort of baby boomers joins the benefit rolls.
I am screaming at the top of my lungs, “How can we let this happen?”
To me, it is absolutely insane to think that the Baby Boomers (I’m one) can put the burden of SS on younger workers. This simply will not work.
The result of a policy approach that sticks everyone under 50 with the
cost of the Boomers is going to result in deep social divides. We have
enough problems in our society today. We don’t need/want Age Warfare to be added to the list. But if the plan to “fix” SS is one that sticks the bill onto young people we WILL have age warfare, it’s inevitable. The social consequences would be greater than the economic costs. Why does no one see this?
Addressing the imbalances at SS will be painful, and no one likes pain.
So the result has been that our political leaders just kick this can
down the road. I don’t think that there will be any fixes at SS until
after 2012. While an extra two years will not result in a crisis, it
will result in a higher cost of the necessary fixes. I hope all the
defenders of SS read what Blahous has said on this:
Elected officials will best serve the interests of the public if financial corrections are enacted at the earliest practicable time.
Earlier action will also afford elected officials with a greater
opportunity to minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower- income workers and those who are already substantially dependent on program benefits.
The big defenders of SS call themselves Liberals. Paul Krugman and Dean Baker are on top of the list. But there is nothing liberal about their position. Who is going to be most hurt by what is coming (absent changes)? The answer is clear. Older people who are 100% dependent on SS and younger workers who are on the bottom of the income scale.
The Liberals have to come to understand their dilemma. The more they put
their foot down and demand no changes to SS, the worse off will be
those that they are actually trying to help. The liberals are shooting their own constituency.
Note: On these matters I consider myself a liberal. But I
come to a completely different conclusions than those who actually call
themselves Liberals.
My position on this complicated issue:
-We can’t cut benefits across the board. Too many people would be eating cat food. That’s not American.
-We can’t put the burden of the Boomers on younger workers. It’s simply not fair. That’s not the American way either.
-The solution(s) have to be born (largely) by the Baby Boomers
themselves. Post the Boomers, SS can be a PayGo concept. But the
transition is not PayGo. It is a huge inter-generational transfer of wealth. This means that well off Boomers (there are many, including myself)
are going to have to dig into their pockets to support those in their
age group who did not fair so well. That, in my opinion, is the only
viable solution. That would be more representative of the American way. Fairness.
All solutions I've ever seen require some degree of the boomers. When have the boomers (as a group) ever sacrificed anytThing for anybody. This may be the most narcisistic generation America has ever seen. Sure, they made imposed sacrifices of blood in Vietnam. Yes, there are the altrustic among them too. However, as a group they have never willingly sacrificed anything for anybody. To presuppose you can convince them to sacrifice now is folly. They will do anything possible to prevent losing a penny in benefits regardless the costs imposed upon the rest of society. As long as the boomers remain they will continue to demand everything that has been "promised" to them, even though it was actually they that were making the promises to themselves. There will be an epic intergenerational wealth transfer and the boomers will gleefully demand it regardless the pain it inflicts upon their children, grandchildren or anyone else.
"When have the boomers (as a group) ever sacrificed anytThing for anybody."
Does the name "Vietnam" ring a bell? 60,000 American dead. Not to mention paying plenty of taxes for the last four decades.
In another post on another thread I point out that boomers did not create any of the programs and agencies breaking the piggy bank these days, e.g., Social Security in 1939, Welfare in 1935, Great Society and Medicare 1966, Fed in 1913, Endless government agencies 1933-76, elimination of gold standard in 1971. Prior generations set up those gems. Boomers are going to have to "fix" them all. That will be the boomers great conflict and sacrifice.
Question is why didn't they start fixing them earlier. There have been in control for quite a while now.
I think you may not be old enough to realize that for 40 plus years the "baby-boomers" have paid in a LARGE amount of taxes! We supported a wasteful government run mostly by wastful democrats. Since the 60's the democrats have created a "welfare state" of benefits traded for votes and NOW someone has to pay the piper. How about confiscating the total assets of all the past Congresscritters who did this. They have doomed the very people they were hired to help. Great Society my butt! There is a revolution on the way! By the way, the government can't really "promise" what they don't own........
+55 dave.
Didn't Greenscam chair a Social Security
Commission in 1983 that supposedly "fixed" SS until, oh, 2075?
Everyone who voted for that solution should be in jail for the rest of their lives.
Full disclosure: I'm old enough to remember the Greenspan Commission, which issued its findings in 1983. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., NY, Hillary's predecessor) was one of the members of the Commission, and he was also co-chair of Dubya's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security, so you have to assume he knew all the conventional wisdom about SS. What was his take? He wanted a portion of SS payments to be set aside as a personal investment account, so that even "the little guy" could grow his assets via the magic of financial markets. The round trip in the Dow over the last decade demonstrates that this probably wouldn't have worked, even if the little guy had avoided investing in Enron, Global Crossing and Webvan.
What about raising the income limits subject to SS (currently $106,800)? Well, the limit was raised, from $102,000 in 2008, and as recently as 2000 it was only $76,200. That didn't seem to do the trick either.
Maybe just raise the SS tax rate? That happened after Greenspan's report, and we were all assured that SS would be fully "pay as you go" as a result, even though the 15.3% (combined FICA and Medicare) hurt like hell if you were self-employed. We drones obediently paid as we went, and here we are again anyway.
IMO there is no solution, but there is one possible outcome that would "save" SS, in a mathematical sense: shorter life expectancies. If all of us would just promise not to live so damn long, those SS funds would stretch a lot further.
This is not an outcome that you're likely to hear discussed by anyone running for elected office.
Allowing citizens to invest at least a portion of their social security contributions is a great idea. The problem is that those who are against this tend to try and frame the debate and call it "privatization", and further set forth the notion that such investment would ONLY be in the stock market. That's a false choice either/or kind of thing.
Politicians raided the social security "trust" fundover 40 years ago, it's not like this should come as any kind of surprise. Incidentally, Fannie Mae was floated from the government at the same time (1968). Anyone with substantial retirement accounts is probably a bit worried about now. Hell, anyone with any money of their own at all ought to be worried about now.
For my part, had (since the late 80s) always assumed there would be nothing for me regards social security and planned accordingly. I was correct, what I didn't count on was the implosion occuring 25 years earlier, and encompassing the failure of nearly the entire western banking system, state local and federal governments, etc. Woops.
pushing back the age at which people can take benefits accomplishes the same thing as shorter life expectencies - essentially you are just shortening the amount of time people can collect benefits.
This is something tha can be more reasonably be means tested, I think. If you are in the highest tax bracket for you last 10 working years, for instance, you can start collecting benefits at age 72 or something.
at any rate, what we have now is unsustainable.
You bring up a point that has bothered me for many years now. Given that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are unsustainable the government actually has an interest in your early "demise" shall we say. It is a major boon to the balance sheets that you not live one day over 65 or one day past your retirement, especially since there is no inheritable component to your government benefits.
If you had invested your own money there would be an inheritance for your progeny as well as the government having no interest in your expiration. In fact, longer lives without social programs would probably be an economic benefit.
I am not going to ascribe an evil conspiracy to the government on life spans but I assure you there will at least be soft forms of the oft mentioned "death panels". You will not be asked to die, you will just be refused treatments as not cost effective for your age and condition. We will find that government is not so compassionate as the modern liberal states.
This was never about you providing for your retirement and for an inheritance for your heirs. It was about transferring your wealth to those who had not prepared.
And, like ALL other Govt subsidies, we get more of the subsidized product, in this case, the unprepared!
"the worse off will be those that they are actually trying to help."
talk is cheap. its always talk. don't confuse this with intent.
"The liberals are shooting their own constituency."
that is OK, they are busy importing another one to replace the ones they used up.
http://goo.gl/FnxBZ Treasury Direct $14 Trillion Debt
http://goo.gl/TMl74 $15 Trillion in Loans
http://goo.gl/EXzal / ='s $29T
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE 3 Years 300% More Dollars Printed Out of Thin Air!
in 3 years.. NOT! including TARP / TALF / FED SWAP Windows.. and / or any other.. than what is sourced and sited above..
$18 Trillion in 3 years! $18 TRILLION!
****************************************************************************************
there is your less taxes and conservatism! all fucking $18 trillion of it!
I worked on legislation to reform SS back in the late '80s when there was still time to fix it... Unfortunately, that time has passed. There is no fix. The numbers don't work anymore and, as you point out, reduced benefits or means-testing are the alternatives on one side. Higher taxes are the option on the other.
Plain and simple, the system has been abused for decades. When it was started, there were approximately 15 workers for every retiree. The numbers are quickly approaching 2:1. Taxation at that level is untenable.
The really funny thing is that each time SS reform was brought forward in any meaningful way (and I did), it was met with the full force of the Senior Lobby (read AARP) and the discussions were cut off at the knees.
For the last 30 years, the lobbyists of the Seniors have trumped the lobby of the workers... that balance may indeed shift to the workers in the coming years. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, not much has changed. The politicians still lack the fortitude to deal with the issue and I don't see this changing. It will reach a boiling point and the other side will probably take the form of generational warfare.
As an aside, I read last week about some new derivative products sold by large pensions designed to offset the risk of people outliving the actuarial tables upon which their benefits were built -- sort of an insurance roulette version of the 'death list'. Pick a man, woman, or child and bet on their timely death. Whatever shred of humanity we had left is now officially gone... That said, look for these financial products to be issued by our Social Security Administration -- coming soon to a bank near you...
The numbers are quickly approaching 2:1
As a sidenote, in Germany the ratio will get close to 1:1 within the next 15 years...
Thank you for your input. Interesting perspective from someone who actually understands the dynamics. Questions:
Do the Trustees of the fund, (Goss in particular) understand where are on this as clearly as you do?
Do you have a link for that derivative on death? Love that stuff.
b
bkrasting@gmail.com
A) Privately, yes. Publicly, no.
B) Yes, I will shoot some more info to your gmail addy
here send him this too pussy since you are unable to speak freely in a public chat room where no one knows your name!
http://goo.gl/FnxBZ Treasury Direct $14 Trillion Debt
http://goo.gl/TMl74 $15 Trillion in Loans
http://goo.gl/EXzal / ='s $29T
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE 3 Years 300% More Dollars Printed Out of Thin Air!
in 3 years.. NOT! including TARP / TALF / FED SWAP Windows.. and / or any other.. than what is sourced and sited above..
$18 Trillion in 3 years! $18 TRILLION!
Good post.
"To me, it is absolutely insane to think that the Baby Boomers (I’m one) can put the burden of SS on younger workers."
But it was perfectly fine for the "greatest generation" to sit atop the pyramid and make out like bandits thanks to the boomers.
You are a dope Bruce. How can you support this intergenerational pyramid scheme after it has become so clear it is unsustainable. The boomers that have not prepared will be eating dog food, and be happy to get it, thanks to libtards like you. And to imply that no one could see this coming and that it was all the result of the 2008 recession... hahahah... pathetic. Some have seen this coming for 25 years - they were ignored and ridiculed by libtards like you. It is thanks to useful idiots such as you the program is going to go down in flames.
Actually it is you that is a dope. Your words:
The boomers that have not prepared will be eating dog food, and be happy to get it, thanks to libtards like you
No. I have a dozen articles on this. I have been shouting from the rooftops. I have been ridiculed for some of the things I have said.And EVERY article said the we can't go down the road where a significant portion of the +65 population is impoverished. I am trying to AVOID that. But time is running out.
It goes like this:
Ready, Aim, Shoot
You did:
Shoot, Ready, Aim
Want to criticize me? Bring it on. But read first.
Hi Bruce,
Just to let you know those who follow your articles know the great job you do on this subject and really look forward to your contributions. The few insulting comments are silly. Its nice to have the true cash flow numbers-the solution is more difficult. I favor a gradual phase out. My taxes have been wasted in more odious ways than SS anyway (the recent wars come to mind). I don't mind working (the best pay/go system) as long as I'm healthy but I have a really enjoyable profession. Keep up the good work.
There may be viable solutions out there, but since it's the 3rd rail of politics it is just much easier to keep kicking the can down the road and blame someone else for whatever problems exist.
It will take truly brave leaders to find and implement a viable solution. Sadly such leaders are in very short supply.
Ultimately its easier to just promise, borrow and spend...
"The liberals are shooting their own constituency."
Their constituency have no idea what you are talking about.
Their constituency have no idea what you are talking about.
The good news is they will come to learn the truth within the next decade.
Just look at the NAACP and its rabid support of hte democratic party.
98% of the jungle bunnies voted for Obamie and now their poorer for it. I guess the jokes on
them.
if not a single, solitary Jungle Bunny.. got off their ass to vote..
let me dumb this down for you.. so that its so fucking clear that you can not in any way mistake what I am saying..
If Not! 1 person of color Voted for Obama... he still would have won, Obama did not need 1 black Vote to win.
all this jungle bunny shit and your kids will be speaking spanish, forever.. in less than 10 years you fucking Moe-Ron!
Yawn...the point I was making was the blackies are racist! Get it, got it, good. As for dumbing
down, you don't have to try.....next!
I like this post as this is the biggest part of the financial tsunami that will swallow America. I think both Republicans and Dems have it wrong. Republicans assert that to save it we have to turn it into welfare, i.e., we means test, increase the age to collect and maybe uncap it. All are wrong. First, no one will let you work long enough to collect at advancing ages. In my industry we have eliminated virtually everyone over 50 unless you are higher up the food chain. Second, means testing confirms that it was never an insurance program and you never had an enforceable contract with government. It makes it welfare. Poor get more. Those who prepared get little or nothing even though they paid the premium for the product. Last, uncapping it effectively makes it an addition to the income tax...a huge addition. That has economic consequences.
Dems don't want to do anything but raise taxes which breaks the piggy bank. They're blooming idiots with their heads in the sand. Although if you want a socialist revolution it may be the correct course of action.
My solution if you want any program is to cap the benefits immediately until revenues and outlays match with no tax increases. No one has to eat cat food but you do have to adapt slowly. No inflationary increases, either. If you still want to continue a program then let each person keep their SS contributions under their name, invested as they wish. It becomes an inheritable asset that can never be raided or go to zero. That would be a decent program that built real wealth. However, government could not cover up it's true deficits which are much larger than reported.
My preferred solution is to eliminate it entirely and give everyone back their 15.2% which would be way more than enough over a lifetime to fund a proportional retirement at any income level. In the meantime you buy people out at various ages. This require MORE debt in the short run to fund a proportional annuity. However, the corrupt government program would be replaced with an enforceable private contract with private companies. That builds wealth, too.
Rest assured we will do it wrong. All you get are committee type solutions from Congress loaded with special favors to large donors and interest groups.
Interesting comment. de Tocqueville wrote a little tome long before Democracy in America called La Pauvreté which makes this point precisely. What is so interesting is that he wrote so arrestingly about this problem when it was just starting. France has gone whole hog with the government acting more or less as a "surrogate family." It's hard to come up with a blanket judgement on this because the French system does represent a kind of enlightened social justice that is so lacking in America. However, at the same time, families, particularly in the lower classes have degraded to the point where parents practically disown their children (the cruelty of which they conceal from themselves--in typical boomer fashion--even if their kids are not fooled) in order to get them on the dole as soon as possible. de Tocqueville's book shows this happening at the very beginning, with families and near relatives engaging in every possible strategem to avoid financial responsibility for their own.
This goes far beyond SS.
Look at the 'first world' dependencies and determing how sound they are. The centuries old family structure has been destroyed and replaced by the central governments. One pays into a 'fund' with the expectation that it will be there for one's retirement.
One participates in the 'job' market - becomes a cog in a machine for a few decades, anticipating a 'retirement' of blue plate specials, and cheap maintance drugs to correct lifelong debilitating habits.
Look at the expences one has when no longer part of the 'work force'. Real estate 'ownership' is an illusion. Taxes and fees must be paid to maintain local governments 'retirement' programs.
The list goes on and on; there's no simple way to escape the trap, it's even difficult to imagine another scenario. Yet the ancient social orders still exist in other cultures.
This is kind of a short rant, but I mean to express that SS and its' pernicious siblings are just a part of an overall dis-ease. From my respective it's a miserable machine whos function is to aggregate capital in order that it be more easily squandered or stolen. The good news is that it, like all ponzi schemes, will collapse.
Not sure I agree with the "cog" portion of your short rant but you have an excellent point on the family structures. The whole idea that grandma will eat catfood if there is no income redistribution essentially says grandma is an idiot and did not prepare for old age. It also says her family are a bunch of selfish jerks who would not upgrade her catfood to at least Hamburger Helper and help with shelter...as families have always done for all of recorded history. Both set up government as savior when, as you imply it is in fact the devil in the deal.
You could also apply this to most other social programs, my favorite being school lunches. When I was young parents actually fed their kids no matter how poor. It was an amazing time. Now, evidently without school lunch redistribution parents will let their kids starve or go malnourished. What has changed in the intervening decades?
Last, the ponzi scheme collapse. I think you are correct, but the question is as to how long it takes a government ponzi-pyramid to collapse versus a private one. Could last a long time and be extra painful. There are printing presses and forced participation in the ponzi.
Nice post.
Yes, very nice point regarding personal responsibility that I was going to make. Part of personal responsibility is taking care of members of your family. My mother would never go without support by me. In fact, I've earned very high wages nearly all my working life and have always realized SS was a ponzi where I would likely never see any of that tax. Its just another tax I pay, but gladly in a way because my mother and father both benefitted, she working for over 40 years at a low paying job. However, I'd like to see the system eliminated/phased out, just keep raising the retirement age. They don't call it "entitlement mentality" for nothing. How did we ever function before the social welfare state took over in the 60s? Personal and family responsibility is my guess. Its not even part of the discussion anymore.
Naturally, businesses will use it as a way to turn the screws on people, making what rotten deals they have look good - by virtue of desperation.
I'd like to see XOM and GE start paying tax, rather than getting off on the taxpayer's dime.
How are we going to fix SS if we encourage Transnational tax cheats? Cheating down a long line of cheats.
The buck has to stop somewhere.
I'd like to see GE start paying taxes too. Talk about fairness. Fairness isn't the class warfare pitched to us of lower-middle vs. upper-middle. It'd be nice not to be looked at as a wage-slave. Unfortunately, that's what we are.
Take the fucking cap off...
This WILL happen. I promise you. And it will make a difference. But is does very little to the outcome. The numbers are too large.
You think this is a fair approach. I disagree and said so in the notes. This is a baby boomer problem and it if for that generation to address. It just ain't fair to stick to younger workers.
Your plan hits younger workers. Anyone under 50 who has in income over 106K will pay your price. This is the "intergenerational" wealth transfer that bothers me.
A question for Nick. How old are you? Are you married? Do both you and your wife work?
I hope that in your life you do earn more than the SS threshold. If so, you can pay more regular income taxes. That seems fair to me. But if you are under 55 you are going to be hit twice. Your FICA is going up and your tax % rate is going up.
Do you really want to get hit twice?
In my opinion, the way it is set up now every person under 55 is going to get hit with this. That makes no sense to me.
Bruce,
I always look to read your articles but I'm calling BS on some of this one!
Your statement that fellow boomers will need to carry those that "didn't fair so well" is so typically lib. "Not fairing so well" is almost always the result of a long series of bad decisions in life. Occasionally it's just bad luck due to accident or illnesss but relatively rarely. If someone's predicament is due to accident or illness then I'm inclined to cut them a little slack and assistance, but wholesale assistance for "not fairing so well " is BS and that lack of personal responsibility is why we're in the jam we're in.
Its not "fairing" so well, but "faring" so well. As in: "to fare." Sorry, couldn't stand it any longer.
decon.... WTF are you talking about?!?!
the middle class has been raped by the oligarchy both legally and illegally for the past 30+ years
Totally agree and that raping is a form of "lacking personal responsibility" on the part of the oligarchs
agreed then
+1
and the whole time the AAA Corporations were buying Lobby(s)... Politely the old timers looked the other way..
the old timers did NOT! see anything happening! robbed the old timers blind, robbed our generation blind and now they are working forward several generations.. and the last generation of old timers buried their heads and voted for Tax Cuts! over and over again..
Now the old timers want austerity for the poor! mean while the AAA Corporations get paid...
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions.
$18 Trillion in 3 years and we are well beyond that now.. but Social Security is on the idiot box full blast 24 hours a day.. and welfare / un-employment benefits extensions.. full blast! 24 hours a day!
But you know what isnt on the idiot box on full blast 24 hours a day?
$18 trillion dollars in 3 fucking years..
you know what’s not on the idiot box..
TARP! which was $700 Billion Dollars.. (paid back after they got 0.25% FED window loans, instead of paying the America Public 7% interest. or whatever %)
But $700 Billion Dollars covering $1 Billion dollars per 10% un-employment benefits.. with a 30% un-employment problem, benefits could be paid forard for a decade plus. Ten fucking years of covering the workers who built this country and kept it running.. but they need austerity! Forced Austerity! and all these old timers who are now retired think that fucking over the people who work solves the money problem.
GUESS FUCKING WHAT!!! it does not solve the problem, it does NOT! solve the $18 Trillion in 3 years that has kept going full blast since..
Austerity! is what the old timers want to cover their asses now.. and once against these same dumb fuck old timers let the "Tax Cuts" fill their dumb fucking heads with thoughts of splendor! mean while, they! the old timers who want austerity! let this shit go on and fucking on and fucking on!
Bullshit on them and Bullshit on the AAA Corporations! Fuckem Both!!
Nobody should go hungry and everyone should pay their fair fucking share!
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions
Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions.
All work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy.
Ladies and gents, this is the insanity we're gonna have in the streets once the gub runs out of options but to take some cheese away from the entitlement crowd.
http://goo.gl/FnxBZ Treasury Direct $14 Trillion Debt
http://goo.gl/TMl74 $15 Trillion in Loans
http://goo.gl/EXzal / ='s $29T
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE 3 Years 300% More Dollars Printed Out of Thin Air!
in 3 years.. NOT! including TARP / TALF / FED SWAP Windows.. and / or any other.. than what is sourced and sited above..
$18 Trillion in 3 years! $18 TRILLION!
The intergenerational transfer of wealth
has been going on since the inception of
the SS system. If we could get the politicians
to stop stealing that might help things a bit.
Stopping the never-ending BS "War on terror"
might also help.
Look the "country" is fucking done...
No jobs, No demand, Debt goes higher, No one
is going to pay 14T..
The only plan these idiots in Washinton can come up with are bi-partisan plans to screw the working class and get even more for themselves.