We can’t afford the war, we can’t afford nationalized healthcare.

[Bob]

It took me too long to see part of the equation, as I am deeply concerned about the threat of another terrorist attack, so my logic (like many others) was if we take the war to them. I think that progress is being made in the war – I really do, but the more I have learned about what our collective national debt the more I see that something has got to give. If we have the type of collapse that I see coming, we won’t be in a position to defend ourselves from terrorism abroad, or from hunger at home. Yup, I know I’m a freak – I admit it freely, but I don’t think anyone here can’t dispute the numbers behind the economic crisis we are in, without coming to a similar conclusion.

There are some things I do not know – like the total expenditures on military spending vs. Social Security and the like. If some have real numbers that are not cooked I would love to see them, but in reality I don’t think it matters if we spend 80% on Social Security, and 20% on Military expenses, or 50/50 – the bottom line we will need to slash both, if we want to avoid significant inflation. Here are some numbers, if you think we can have spend more on healthcare or the military you need to have your head examined – justify it if you can. To hell with your pathetic club that you belong to – you are an American first – we are all on the Titanic, and it is sinking.

This info was on USA Today:

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.
This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.

[Bronco Bob]

I am not aware of any candidate currently running on either side calling
for nationalized healtcare anyway. And currently Social Security is solvent
to at least 2040, so I don't see that as a problem either. And in regards
to the war, if you want it to end vote Democratic or Ron Paul.

[Spider]

...... you realize that 19 people armed with Box cutters did all of this right ? if Security was in place ....... Oh **** never mind . I am wasting my time

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Spider

...... you realize that 19 people armed with Box cutters did all of this right ? if Security was in place ....... Oh **** never mind . I am wasting my time

I hear you. Dont be such a cynic. I was against going into Iraq, but after in, I thought, well -- maybe taking it to them keeps us more safe, I still dont know -f it did. I agree that it would have been better (before we went in) if we would have taken 1/2 of the money spent on the war and put it into security measures and the like, including propaganda. Once we were in, I thought we better finish what we started, but I now have doubts about how long we can hold up ecomicly -- and the numbers from our domestic obligations dwarf our military obligations -- but the bottom line is we have to slash our spending -- and that means both (well intentioned programs) right now.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bob

I hear you. Dont be such a cynic. I was against going into Iraq, but after in, I thought, well -- maybe taking it to them keeps us more safe, I still dont know -f it did. I agree that it would have been better (before we went in) if we would have taken 1/2 of the money spent on the war and put it into security measures and the like, including propaganda. Once we were in, I thought we better finish what we started, but I now have doubts about how long we can hold up ecomicly -- and the numbers from our domestic obligations dwarf our military obligations -- but the bottom line is we have to slash our spending -- and that means both (well intentioned programs) right now.

we do have to cut spending , but we have to raise taxes also`.......

[elsid13]

here are three quick way to solve the problem - end the depression era programs that pay folk not to grow things, update the mineral laws and charge companies for real 2008 price vs 1800s price for exacting our minerals from public lands and finally fix the water pricing in the west, IE stop subsidizing water price.

[TheDave]

Where are people getting this $59 trillion number from? Fiscal 2007 our debt is about $9 trillion.... So what does the figure $59 trillion in "liabilities" include?

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Where are people getting this $59 trillion number from? Fiscal 2007 our debt is about $9 trillion.... So what does the figure $59 trillion in "liabilities" include?

social security liabilities are enormous. though in all likelihood we will legislate away much of these liabilities, they for now exist.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Where are people getting this $59 trillion number from? Fiscal 2007 our debt is about $9 trillion.... So what does the figure $59 trillion in "liabilities" include?

It comes from David Walker who is the head accountant in charge of keeping our books, he is the US comptroller he was on 60 Minutes talking about our collective debt just last week I believe. The 9 Trillion number is a lie -- there are three book kept.

BALANCE DUE

The cost per U.S. household of unfunded promises made by federal, state and local government:

Medicare $255,280


Social Security $144,251


Federal debt $43,380


Military benefits $25,863


State and local debt $17,537


Federal civil- servant benefits $14,374


State and local retiree benefits $13,114


Other federal obligations $2,548


Total $516,348


Source: USA TODAY research; numbers

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by elsid13

here are three quick way to solve the problem - end the depression era programs that pay folk not to grow things, update the mineral laws and charge companies for real 2008 price vs 1800s price for exacting our minerals from public lands and finally fix the water pricing in the west, IE stop subsidizing water price.

Hell yeah. Good luck finding a politician on either side willing to do this.
I haven't even heard Ron Paul speak specifically about this.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Where are people getting this $59 trillion number from?

From the Comptroller General. He's been everywhere talking about this.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Bob

It comes from David Walker who is the head accountant in charge of keeping our books, he is the US comptroller he was on 60 Minutes talking about our collective debt just last week I believe. The 9 Trillion number is a lie -- there are three book kept.

BALANCE DUE

The cost per U.S. household of unfunded promises made by federal, state and local government:

Medicare $255,280


Social Security $144,251


Federal debt $43,380


Military benefits $25,863


State and local debt $17,537


Federal civil- servant benefits $14,374


State and local retiree benefits $13,114


Other federal obligations $2,548


Total $516,348


Source: USA TODAY research; numbers

Rolling back the tax cuts on the top 1% would more than cover this.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Bob

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

Myth #3: Social Security's trust funds are filled with worthless IOUs.

When investors become worried about the economy and the stock market, they "flee to safety" by selling their other securities in exchange for U.S. Treasury bonds and bills. Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, U.S. Treasury securities are considered to be the safest, most reliable investment worldwide. Because the federal government is legally obligated to pay back interest and principal on those securities, it would take an almost unimaginable calamity for a default to occur. Social Security's trust funds, which now amount to $1.5 trillion and are expected to grow to $5.3 trillion by 2018, hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities.

Alan Greenspan, now the Federal Reserve chairman, led a bipartisan commission in 1983 that recommended changes to Social Security explicitly to produce the large trust funds that the system will draw on to pay for the baby boom generation's retirement from roughly 2008 to 2030. Those reforms, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, were widely hailed at the time by both parties as a model of effective government. If anything, those reforms have turned out to be even more successful than originally imagined, as the improved forecasts in recent years for the program demonstrate. The central reason for that success was the Greenspan Commission's idea of building up trust funds invested in safe U.S. Treasury securities.

Myth #4: The real date to worry about is 2018.

President Bush and others have argued that Social Security's problem begins not in 2042, when the trust funds would be depleted, but 2018, when Social Security's trustees project that payroll taxes will no longer exceed that year's benefit obligations. But the whole reason why President Reagan and Alan Greenspan created the trust funds was to guarantee that benefits could continue to be paid in full when payroll taxes did not fully cover the system's expenses. Remember that the trust funds will amount to about $5.3 trillion at that time. Just the interest on the trust fund's Treasury securities will be more than sufficient to finance payments fully for another ten years. Indeed, the trust funds still will grow another 25 percent from 2018 to 2028, reaching about $6.6 trillion because of the interest earned on those securities.

From the standpoint of the federal budget, after 2018, some general revenues will be needed to pay for the difference between each year's payroll taxes and guaranteed benefits as part of the interest owed on the trust fund's Treasury securities. But in each of those years, the expected cost will be relatively modest. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that in 2025, for example, the difference between Social Security's benefit costs and its non-interest revenues will be less than 10 percent of the projected federal deficit. By comparison, the Bush administration's tax cuts, if made permanent, and the new prescription drug benefit for Medicare will cost five times as much in that year.

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Myth #3: Social Security's trust funds are filled with worthless IOUs.

When investors become worried about the economy and the stock market, they "flee to safety" by selling their other securities in exchange for U.S. Treasury bonds and bills. Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, U.S. Treasury securities are considered to be the safest, most reliable investment worldwide. Because the federal government is legally obligated to pay back interest and principal on those securities, it would take an almost unimaginable calamity for a default to occur. Social Security's trust funds, which now amount to $1.5 trillion and are expected to grow to $5.3 trillion by 2018, hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities.

Alan Greenspan, now the Federal Reserve chairman, led a bipartisan commission in 1983 that recommended changes to Social Security explicitly to produce the large trust funds that the system will draw on to pay for the baby boom generation's retirement from roughly 2008 to 2030. Those reforms, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, were widely hailed at the time by both parties as a model of effective government. If anything, those reforms have turned out to be even more successful than originally imagined, as the improved forecasts in recent years for the program demonstrate. The central reason for that success was the Greenspan Commission's idea of building up trust funds invested in safe U.S. Treasury securities.

Myth #4: The real date to worry about is 2018.

President Bush and others have argued that Social Security's problem begins not in 2042, when the trust funds would be depleted, but 2018, when Social Security's trustees project that payroll taxes will no longer exceed that year's benefit obligations. But the whole reason why President Reagan and Alan Greenspan created the trust funds was to guarantee that benefits could continue to be paid in full when payroll taxes did not fully cover the system's expenses. Remember that the trust funds will amount to about $5.3 trillion at that time. Just the interest on the trust fund's Treasury securities will be more than sufficient to finance payments fully for another ten years. Indeed, the trust funds still will grow another 25 percent from 2018 to 2028, reaching about $6.6 trillion because of the interest earned on those securities.

From the standpoint of the federal budget, after 2018, some general revenues will be needed to pay for the difference between each year's payroll taxes and guaranteed benefits as part of the interest owed on the trust fund's Treasury securities. But in each of those years, the expected cost will be relatively modest. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that in 2025, for example, the difference between Social Security's benefit costs and its non-interest revenues will be less than 10 percent of the projected federal deficit. By comparison, the Bush administration's tax cuts, if made permanent, and the new prescription drug benefit for Medicare will cost five times as much in that year.

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507

Thanks for posting this.

I get so sick of hearing the right-wing regressives trying to peddle these myths in their efforts to take America back to the Hoover era.

[W*GS]

Social Security isn't an "insurance" scheme, nor does it have a "trust fund". Those are politically-palatable euphemisms for what is nothing more than an income transfer program.

SS always has been, and will continue to be (barring changes) a program designed to shift money from younger, poorer working people, to older, richer, retirees. Along the way, it's been used to hide the extent the annual shortfall in general spending. It's basically a cash cow. That will change pretty soon.

It's defenders never tell the truth.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Social Security isn't an "insurance" scheme, nor does it have a "trust fund". Those are politically-palatable euphemisms for what is nothing more than an income transfer program.

SS always has been, and will continue to be (barring changes) a program designed to shift money from younger, poorer working people, to older, richer, retirees. Along the way, it's been used to hide the extent the annual shortfall in general spending. It's basically a cash cow. That will change pretty soon.

It's defenders never tell the truth.

you are so full of **** , your eyes should be brown .......

[W*GS]

Show me where I'm wrong, Spider.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Show me where I'm wrong, Spider.

yeah ......

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Thanks for posting this.

I get so sick of hearing the right-wing regressives trying to peddle these myths in their efforts to take America back to the Hoover era.

Actually thanks to Rohirrim for providing the link. I just felt it was
worth reposting the text in case someone couldn't go to the link.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Social Security isn't an "insurance" scheme, nor does it have a "trust fund". Those are politically-palatable euphemisms for what is nothing more than an income transfer program.

SS always has been, and will continue to be (barring changes) a program designed to shift money from younger, poorer working people,

And one day these younger, poorer working people will be retiring too.

to older, richer, retirees.

What a bunch of nonsense. Where did you get the idea the average
retiring worker was rich? I guess you missed the stories about elderly
people eating canned dog food because that was the only meat they
could afford. Old people don't gets rich off Social Security, but it is
the only thing that keeps some of them from starving to death.

Along the way, it's been used to hide the extent the annual shortfall in general spending. It's basically a cash cow.

So change that part. Put the Social Security funds in a lock box.
You want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

That will change pretty soon.

Only if people are stupid enough to elect another Bush clone.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

And one day these younger, poorer working people will be retiring too.

And will not be receiving what they have been promised, and/or, their children and grandchildren will be burdened with far higher taxes to keep those promises. The RMS Titanic of SS is running into the iceberg of demographics.

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

What a bunch of nonsense. Where did you get the idea the average retiring worker was rich? I guess you missed the stories about elderly people eating canned dog food because that was the only meat they could afford. Old people don't gets rich off Social Security, but it is the only thing that keeps some of them from starving to death.

I didn't say that retirees were rich, I said they were richer. The average retiree is in far better financial shape than a young working person. Considering how SS benefits aren't means-tested (nor should they be, since that would renege on the promises made to SS beneficiaries when they were "donating" into SS), more than a few SS beneficiaries are quite well-off and don't really need their SS benefits.

Certainly there are elderly folks and retirees who are poor. There are also working folks living paycheck-to-paycheck, on the verge of poverty. They are also being forced to transfer some of their paltry earnings to retirees who don't need it.

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

So change that part. Put the Social Security funds in a lock box.

That's mere political rhetoric with no real substance.

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

The baby has defecated and urinated in the bath water, so now it's filthy, and you want to toss in some Perrier, believing that will make it all better.

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Only if people are stupid enough to elect another Bush clone.

You've limited yourself to very few choices about what to do with SS (and Medicare too, which is actually the far bigger problem). Either you cut promised benefits, raise taxes, or both. Which is your choice?

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You've limited yourself to very few choices about what to do with SS (and Medicare too, which is actually the far bigger problem). Either you cut promised benefits, raise taxes, or both. Which is your choice?

My choice is to leave it to hell alone. It's just fine the way it is right
now. It's not broken and it doesn't need fixing, and screwing with it
runs the real chance of screwing it up. That SS is broke and needs
to be privatized is the biggest Bush scam perpetuated on the American
public since the Iraqi WMDs.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

My choice is to leave it to hell alone. It's just fine the way it is right now. It's not broken and it doesn't need fixing, and screwing with it runs the real chance of screwing it up. That SS is broke and needs to be privatized is the biggest Bush scam perpetuated on the American public since the Iraqi WMDs.

Like I said, either you will have to cut promised benefits, or raise SS taxes on your kids and grandkids to keep SS solvent. Which is it? Or do you want to do both?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Social Security isn't an "insurance" scheme, nor does it have a "trust fund". Those are politically-palatable euphemisms for what is nothing more than an income transfer program.

SS always has been, and will continue to be (barring changes) a program designed to shift money from younger, poorer working people, to older, richer, retirees. Along the way, it's been used to hide the extent the annual shortfall in general spending. It's basically a cash cow. That will change pretty soon.

It's defenders never tell the truth.

You act as if the "older, richer, retirees" never paid into the system themselves.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You act as if the "older, richer, retirees" never paid into the system themselves.

They did - and they, by and large, have gotten far more out than they put in.

Read up on SS at wikipedia - because of the way SS has been manipulated over the years (by politicians in both parties), it's messed up. Big time.

Funny how the people who blast capitalism over Enron give statism a pass over SS, even though the two are quite similar pyramid schemes...