The Beginning of the Social Security Meltdown

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,111]

> if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year.

They would then see that much support as a moral imperative to start their own programs. Perhaps another war, or a tax cut. And the problem will get much, much worse.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

I see and w/o doing a search, I don't recall you bitching about this when your party was in control.

As for debt, let me see, when did the debt get paid down or at least stabilized?

- When the top brkt was 91% under Eisenhower and he got us out of war.

- Under Clinton when he raised taxes to a paultry 40% top brkt and kept us out of war / cut the military / cut spending.

When was the debt the worst as in the most increase and the most unstable?

- Any and all times of war

- When taxes were cut, esp Reagan cutting the top brkt from 70% to 28% in 6 years.

- When Bush cut taxes and got us into the Iraq War



So I think we see a theme here, the deficit/debt increases the most when:

- We are at war
- We cut taxes


The deficit/debt heals the most when:

- Taxes are 40% top brkt or higher
- We are not engaged in war


It's not difficult, kids, just repeat the things that work, avoid the things that don't, regardless of who's in power politically.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year.

They would then see that much support as a moral imperative to start their own programs. Perhaps another war, or a tax cut. And the problem will get much, much worse.

Right, the new revolution of change, repeated w/o any stability and when it goes to fuck, they just need more time for it work.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Under Clinton... kept us out of war

Really? There's a group of Army Rangers that would disagree with you...just because the mass media you read doesn't talk about a conflict, doesn't mean that one isn't happening somewhere!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Under Clinton... kept us out of war

Really? There's a group of Army Rangers that would disagree with you...just because the mass media you read doesn't talk about a conflict, doesn't mean that one isn't happening somewhere!

I doubt under any presidency have we gone without any battle, bloodshed, fighting or whatever you want to call it. What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples:

- WWII
- Korea
- VN
- Iraq/AFG Wars

The Gulf War was relatively inexpensive, I guess that's becuase a true war hero was in charge of it, rather than war cowards like Reagan and GWB.

I know we are always fighting some battle somewhere, but the biggies are the ones that cost us the most and jack up the debt ;that was OBVIOUSLY my point.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

I see and w/o doing a search,

...and the rest is irrelevant. Go read up on the Onion and Wiki at your next VA appointment.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

Care to find a graph of WHO started that borrowing.. and who did the most borrowing.. or would that be out of the scope of the rant about Obama????

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

Care to find a graph of WHO started that borrowing.. and who did the most borrowing.. or would that be out of the scope of the rant about Obama????

I must have missed the Obama rant in that post.

James

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Under Clinton... kept us out of war

Really? There's a group of Army Rangers that would disagree with you...just because the mass media you read doesn't talk about a conflict, doesn't mean that one isn't happening somewhere!

AS a history major I would have thought you would be historicaly accurate in placeing responsibility for the deployment of our troops in Somalia at least. The decisions were made in 1992 under President Bush as part of a UN mission.

Do you not remember the clusterfuck televised invasion on the beach at Mogadishu on 9 DEC1992.

Who was the president at the time????????????????????


http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/american_marines_land_in_somalia_on_this_day_9th_december_199/

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

Interest is running about $120B a year too...or another $1.2Tr of debt over the next 10 years.

This cheap math to mask the budget deficits over the past few decades are now here to reap what has been sown.

Thank you Congress, if I had my way, you'd all be fired and replaced en masse this year. Since this republic must function, I will settle for all Representatives followed by the balance of Senators over the next six years.

Care to find a graph of WHO started that borrowing.. and who did the most borrowing.. or would that be out of the scope of the rant about Obama????

I must have missed the Obama rant in that post.

James

That is because the only reaction and cover for failure of their political agenda is some form of Obama Bashing comment and rant - knee jerk reaction - I guess they are finally getting over the "It's all Bush's Fault!" fallacy. But i doubt it - it was probably just a lapse.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

AS a history major I would have thought you would be historicaly accurate in placeing responsibility for the deployment of our troops in Somalia at least.

I am accurate. In March of 1993 the UN recommended a change in mission, which is what resulted in the initial incident that I referenced. This was called UNOSOM II.

To save time and effort in typing out a full response by hand, I'm copying and pasting from Wiki about US military operations/conflicts in which Clinton deployed the troops (for Lucky), which also included action in Iraq. This is to show beyond the well known action I referenced about Clinton. This isn't a Clinton bash, its to show a point that no matter how much warm glow you want to remember a president with, it was never that good.

Quote

1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

1994-95 – Operation Uphold Democracy, Haiti. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.[RL30172]

1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172]

1995 – Operation Deliberate Force, Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.[RL30172]

1996 – Operation Assured Response, Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172]

1996 – Operation Quick Response, Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response , responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.

1997 – Operation Silver Wake, Albania On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172]

1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172]

1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172]

1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172]

1998 – Operation Desert Fox, Iraq - U.S. and British forces conduct a a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172]

1998 – Operation Shepherd Venture, Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172]

1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [RL30172]

1998 – Operation Infinite Reach, Afghanistan and Sudan. On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]

1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] [RL30172]

1999-2001 East Timor. Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172]

1999 – Operation Allied Force - NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.[RL30172]

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lucky... 0]

Military spending was way down as compared to the 800B on Iraq/AFG alone. Is it hard for you to understand what long, protracted war means? Clinton cut spending and didn't jump into the ME after the Cole, 93 WTC attack, etc. Only a moron, like the guy you voted for, would do such a thing. Even Reagan was smart enough, or senile enough, not to engage in some fucking pathetic war. Does that mean there were no military actions during the Reagan years? Of course not, JUST NO LONG, PROTRACTED, EXPENSIVE WARS.

Do I need to spell it out more clearly?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

JUST NO LONG, PROTRACTED, EXPENSIVE WARS.

Well gee, why didn't you just say that in the first place, since your first statement is obviously incorrect. Or are you simply too much of a troll to be able to admit it when you're wrong?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

JUST NO LONG, PROTRACTED, EXPENSIVE WARS.

Well gee, why didn't you just say that in the first place, since your first statement is obviously incorrect. Or are you simply too much of a troll to be able to admit it when you're wrong?

I answerd that in post #6, a post I answered to you:

I doubt under any presidency have we gone without any battle, bloodshed, fighting or whatever you want to call it. What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples:

- WWII
- Korea
- VN
- Iraq/AFG Wars

Apparently you aren't real good at that reading stuff.

[AggieDave 6]

Wow, you're really getting worked up. Too bad you didn't try harder to be this articulate, with the bold and the underlining, in the first post. Then maybe you wouldn't have stated something so incorrectly.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Amazon 7]

Did you count the numbers there... interesting semantics games you TRY to play. How many hundreds did Clinton deploy into active invasions and not just peacekeeping missions.. as opposed to hundreds of thousands by King George the First and King George II???

You do understand the nature of all those conflicts....right???

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You do understand the nature of all those conflicts

Sure, but its too much fun to mess with a troll.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Did you count the numbers there... interesting semantics games you TRY to play. How many hundreds did Clinton deploy into active invasions and not just peacekeeping missions.. as opposed to hundreds of thousands by King George the First and King George II???

You do understand the nature of all those conflicts....right???

Right, the nature and the costs, as was my pioint that Aggie refuses to address, just a spinoff misdirection from the fact that low taxes and engagement in expensive wars = huge debt.

Now he's relegated to worrying about letters in bold and underlining....sad situation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

Congress has been borrowing against the social security trust fund for so long now, IOUs over $2.5Tr according to the article. Now, Social Security has to start collecting on that because for the first time, they will be doling out more in payments than receipts in taxes. Oh, but wait, the government doesn't have any money either...

The good part of all of this - it's running in the red now rather than 2016 because people had to retire early. Well, that's terrible for them, but good for SS, because their net take will be lower. And it forces us to act on this problem 6 years later, and to not use the surplus for exceed spending for 6 more years.

[funjumper101 15]

Too bad the right wingnuts LOVE the wealthy. The wingnuts are totally conviced that if the wealthy actually were taxed at the same rates as us peons, the sky would fall, the US economy would collapse, and the world as we know it would come to an end.

The very simple and straightforward solution to the this matter is the removal of the income cap on Social Security taxes. All income, including that which is over 108,000.00 per year, should be subject to the SS tax. Right now, past 108K, no SS taxes are due. This means that the vast majority of US Citizens pay SS taxes on 100% of their income, while those that make over 108K don't. Past 108K, they are free and clear.

Why don't you right wingnuts ever support tax fairness? Because it isn't presented on Faux news?

[futuredivot 0]

So, if you remove the tax cap are you going to remove the pay-out cap?. So, we tax old man Smith on his 2.4 mil salary, but when he retires at 62 to Bora Bora, we keep sending him the appropriate rated amount of money every month until he dies at 92, because the fucker can afford some really good doctors and he's gonna be around awhile. So worried about "fair"-kiddo, fair is where you get cotton candy and ride the carousel-it has little to do with life.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[champu 1]

Quote

The very simple and straightforward solution to the this matter is the removal of the income cap on Social Security taxes. All income, including that which is over 108,000.00 per year, should be subject to the SS tax. Right now, past 108K, no SS taxes are due. This means that the vast majority of US Citizens pay SS taxes on 100% of their income, while those that make over 108K don't. Past 108K, they are free and clear.

If you think people paying $13,243.20 (12.4% times $106,800) into social security every year are going to see a payout that is anything but insulting when they retire you are mistaken.

How about sacking social security payouts altogether, keeping the tax around until we pay off the national debt and then kill the program off? [tongue-in-cheek] Old retired people are a terrible investment anyway.[/tongue-in-cheek]

[Sucky... 0]

Yeah man... tell em Lucky

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Too bad the right wingnuts LOVE the wealthy. The wingnuts are totally conviced that if the wealthy actually were taxed at the same rates as us peons, the sky would fall, the US economy would collapse, and the world as we know it would come to an end.

According to the IRS (2006 data), the cutoff for the top 10% was $110k, and there were 13.5 million filers that had an income above 100k. Those filers pay 71% of the taxes - how much more do you want to soak them for before YOU think they're paying their fair share?

Quote

Why don't you right wingnuts ever support tax fairness?

Tax fairness being defined as 'take every penny we can from the rich', evidently, since roughly 50% don't pay any taxes.

Quote

Because it isn't presented on Faux news?

Also evident is the fact that you've never looked at the numbers, but swallowed what the Lib media have been putting out hook, line and sinker.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706