UPDATE AT END OF POST: 2006 video of Sen. Barack Obama applauding the death of Social Security reform.
Contrary to what the Left and their media minions told Americans in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to reform Social Security, the nation's largest entitlement program is now projected to run deficits for at least the next two years.
In an article on the subject published Sunday, the Associated Press mysteriously hid the seriousness of this revelation while never once mentioning the Republican push to solve this problem four years ago, or that Democrats in January 2006 -- including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- actually applauded the death of the previous year's reform efforts.
The obfuscation began with the headline:
"Early Retirements Strain Social Security System."
Strain? How about calling a spade a spade and letting people know up front that Social Security is about to run a deficit?
No. Such honesty came later:
Big job losses and a spike in early retirement claims from laid-off seniors will force Social Security to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years, the first time that's happened since the 1980s.
The deficits — $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 — won't affect payments to retirees because Social Security has accumulated surpluses from previous years totaling $2.5 trillion. But they will add to the overall federal deficit.
Applications for retirement benefits are 23 percent higher than last year, while disability claims have risen by about 20 percent. Social Security officials had expected applications to increase from the growing number of baby boomers reaching retirement, but they didn't expect the increase to be so large.
What happened? The recession hit and many older workers suddenly found themselves laid off with no place to turn but Social Security.
From there, the piece tugged at the heartstrings by trying to explain how this happened:
Marylyn Kish turns 62 in December, making her eligible for early benefits. She wants to put off applying for Social Security until she is at least 67 because the longer you wait, the larger your monthly check.
But she first needs to find a job. [...]
Kish said her husband already gets early benefits. She will have to apply, too, if she doesn't soon find a job.
Finally, the facts:
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes next year and in 2011, a first since the early 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security.
Social Security is projected to start generating surpluses again in 2012 before permanently returning to deficits in 2016 unless Congress acts again to shore up the program. Without a new fix, the $2.5 trillion in Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted in 2037.
Might have been a nice time to mention that in 2005, President Bush wanted to overhaul Social Security to prevent this from happening, and that Democrats in Congress aided and abetted by their media minions convinced the American people that this wasn't a serious problem that needed to be addressed yet.
Unfortunately, that wasn't mentioned by the AP. Instead, this was:
President Barack Obama has said he would like to tackle Social Security next year.
Hmmm. So the crisis Bush and the Republicans predicted is now here, and not only doesn't the AP mention that, it also didn't express any shock whatsoever that Obama isn't focusing on this now.
Also curious was the total absence of any discussion concerning how Social Security deficits could impact the current debate concerning healthcare reform.
After all, if deficits are now going to become commonplace to the nation's largest entitlement program, shouldn't that be part of the discussion concerning the proposed creation of a public option for healthcare?
Alas, the AP didn't make that connection.
It will therefore be quite interesting in the coming days to watch how others report this CBO revelation, and if they're equally amnesiac concerning Bush's attempt to solve this problem as well as incurious about how these deficits relate to healthcare reform.
Stay tuned.
*****Update: NBer meester correctly pointed out in the comments section that the Democrats wildly applauded during President Bush's 2006 State of the Union address when he said, "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security":
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements.
This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turns 60, including two of my dad's favorite people: me and President Clinton.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
This milestone is more than a personal crisis.
(LAUGHTER)
It is a national challenge.
The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices: staggering tax increases, immense deficits or deep cuts in every category of spending.
Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security...
(APPLAUSE)
... yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away.
And with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.
So tonight I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
This commission should include members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.
Taking this a step further, the following is a picture of the Democrats at that moment. Notice Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) also applauding (h/t Israpundit, full video available here with relevant section at 46:00):
Assuming this CBO announcement gets much coverage, wouldn't an honest media play this video along with President Bush's warning?
And how about discussing the current President actually applauding the death of Social Security reform while he was a Senator?
After all, it seems a metaphysical certitude America will dearly regret for many years nay decades to come what Democrats and the media did to kill Social Security reform in 2005.
Now that the deficits the Right predicted have begun, it would be nice for the press to point out that George W. Bush and a Republican Congress tried to solve this problem, but were stymied by folks on the left side of the aisle including the current White House resident.
Or would that be too much like journalism?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
He wants to tackle it, alright!
September 27, 2009 - 10:51 ET by CobraMan"President Barack Obama has said he would like to tackle Social Security next year."
He wants to tackle it alright. Just like medicare, he wants to knock down and subdue any program that assists the elderly and infirm. In order to give "free health care" to young, tax producing Americans, he has to eliminate the old and infirm because they're a huge expense and don't produce enough tax revenue. To Obama, and the rest of the left, caring for the old and infirm a waste of tax dollars.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
THE NEXT OUTRAGE
September 27, 2009 - 13:06 ET by reelman46CONGRESSIONAL MORTAL SIN…SOCIAL SECURITY
SEPT 27, 2009…”Job Losses and Early Retirements Strain Social Security System
The deficits — $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 — they will add to the overall federal deficit.”
=====
If a voter ever needed a model to confirm their belief that congress
cannot run a hot dog stand…Social Security is it. For decades the
demo-socialists used the SS issue as a demon by claiming Repubs “wanted
to take it away”…a convincing lie election after election.
Did I mention a Democrat moved our SS Fund into the General Fund where it was exposed easiy to theft?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch the congressional thieves were looting
the SS Trust Fund of its reserves to buy votes with porky bills year
after year after year. They left IOUs in place of trillions in cash.
Thanks a pant load you shameless thugs! Once again congress creates a
problem, fails to solve it, campaigns to solves it, does nothing…you
know the drill.
Klinton got a couple years of a demo-socialist congress so he taxed it. It what dems do.
Bush tried to tour the country and get support for an OPTION so those
under 55 could invest a tiny percent in private ways. The
demo-socialists got their rent-a-mobs and demonized him with 80 year
olds in wheechairs and such. The option was for below age 55…but when
has truth ever mattered? Dems never want less gov-meant control over
your life. Bush threw in the towel.
But fiscal insanity eventually catches up to congress in 2010 and
will land right in your paycheck after about 40 years of trusting
congress.
The word is Obama wants to tackle SS next year. That will be ugly. You will not like it. Its that “trust” thing.
http://conservablogs...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
What do you mean the
September 27, 2009 - 18:38 ET by NL207What do you mean the Congress could not even run a hot dog stand? The government went broke running a whorehouse in Nevada some years back.
"The feds learned their lesson years ago when they tried to run the Mustang Ranch brothel. It was a public relations disaster!"
Unretire?
September 27, 2009 - 10:52 ET by slickwillie2001I've been wondering why the gummint doesn't come up with a way for someone to come out of Social Security retirement so that they can go back to work, and go back to paying into SS, in return for higher payments when they re-retire. I know that many folks retire and then regret it and go back to work. Income taxes just eats up SS if you are working as well.
It could be fiddled with so that it is beneficial to SS, as well as the worker. This phenomenon of a wave of early retirements is likely temporary.
Here's a better idea, stop taxing SS.
September 27, 2009 - 11:14 ET by CobraManHere;s a better idea Stop taxing Social Security benefits.
It's always infuriates me that the very same government who takes a percentage of our income and holds if for years without applying any interest to that money, has the gall to TAX us when they give that money back to the people they took it from!
Hay, government, unless you're willing to pay INTEREST on the SSI money you collect from us and later return, stop TAXING us for that money, ok?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Can anyone post a link to the video of the Dems standing ovation
September 27, 2009 - 11:18 ET by meesterCan anyone post a link to the video of the Dems giving themselves a standing ovation when Pres GW Bush said he couldn't get Soc Sec. changes that he wanted?
I have it on tape . . .somewhere.
Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell had an article about the benefit of ending new enrollments in Soc Sec. so that we could define what benefits needed to be paid out ad\nd budget for it. Here is an alternative article in any case; http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4589
meester
September 27, 2009 - 11:23 ET by BKeyserThis one?
Yeah, they were really
September 27, 2009 - 12:39 ET by motherbeltYeah, they were really proud of themselves.
What a disgrace!
This is the same bunch who claim that now claim that the Republicans want universal health care; they just don't want Obama to be the one who gets it done.
That video ought to be part of the campaign of everyone running against one of those incumbent Democrats in 2010!
And if The One gives a speech on the need to fix it now, I hope a Republican does a rebuttal and uses that video!
meester
September 27, 2009 - 11:37 ET by Noel Sheppardmeester,
Thank you...see update! ns
AHH Thanks. I'm glad to see that and great response too!
September 27, 2009 - 15:37 ET by meesterLike someone said, this should be part of 2010 campaigns. With the digital version available it can be done easily.
(Now I need to find the 1989 Iben Brauning interview where he marked his words regarding man's influence on the climate. Quick summary; changes well beyond man's influence dwarf our impact and will be responsible for the breakup of the USSR in the early 90's. Geez! He called his shot, was right, and was ignored)
Thanks again for the Soc Sec video.
Social Security in deficit? Oh no!
September 27, 2009 - 12:14 ET by jefflebowskiI hope they'll protect my "investments" so they'll be there when I retire! /s What is amazing is there are still people in this country who believe liberal politics work!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Imagine how Barnie Madoff feels
September 27, 2009 - 19:46 ET by needleI can imagine Barnie Madoff feeling unfairly persecuted for his puny little $50 Billion ponzi rip-off. After all it was nothing compared to the Social Security train wreck, the defeat of its rescue Obama and the rest of the Democrats so joyously applauded.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
Noel - when Bush presented the SS crisis - the MSM attacked him
September 27, 2009 - 12:22 ET by Gary HallNoel. When Bush presented the SS crisis, the MSM and their allies, the Democrats, attacked him. To expound on that a bit.
The theme against President Bush's presentation of the obvious and well documented truth. In spite of this widely held view:
We find that the Democrats and the national MSM sought to change the view of the American public:
Presented in the LA Times, alone, in the effort to discredit Bush were literally dozens of efforts. Here are a few:
Well, the "groups" in opposition, were the MSM. The LAT's continues:
Needless to say.. this "shock and awe" approach was a 24/7 attack on the Bush view that there was a crisis - and it continued until Bush lost the battle - the battle for us.
Did Bush see it different than his predecessors? Not at all. Clinton/Gore traveled the country presenting the view that SS was headed for a financial crisis. Not only would the MSM hide from the voters that Clinton/Gore had loudly expressed much the same view - it would capitilize on every opportunity to deny that the view was widely held:
Really?
For Clinton and Gore, the MSM yawned, just as they are now with this current news. For Bush, the allied forces of the MSM broadly attacked his presentation of the crisis, and they attacked him personally.
Note: I'm rather confident that a Nexus search of the rest of the MSM will reveal thousands of news articles, news analysis, op-eds, editorials, special reports - print, radio, and TV - all directly focused on defeating any effort from President Bush to reform anything; SS, Immigration, energy, Medicare, education, national security, etc.
A little different than during the Clinton years and the past 200 + days with Obama.
(;~/ gary
Gary
September 27, 2009 - 12:31 ET by MrShyGreat stuff you dug up!! Good work, and so true. Arg. I'm getting mad again. :p
Ditto to what Mr. Shy
September 27, 2009 - 12:40 ET by motherbeltDitto to what Mr. Shy says.
And I repeat what I said above: they are a complete disgrace!
MrShy.. mb
September 27, 2009 - 13:59 ET by Gary HallHey thanks.. it wasnt't that hard. A quick search of the archives -all right there. And the disgrace is truely that the American people have been routinely lied to - and continue to suffer because they are not exposed to hard news and hard views which are broadly censored by the MSM.
(;~/ gary
Sounds like some chickens
September 27, 2009 - 18:31 ET by mattmSounds like some chickens are coming home to roost.
But Noel, look at the
September 27, 2009 - 12:46 ET by dscottBut Noel, look at the bright side, with the SS trust fund running in deficit by 2011 that means we are finally getting our money back as all those IOUs have to be paid back. The SS trust fund can no longer be pilfered for vote buying programs, the well is dry. The same goes for the Medicare Trust Fund. The real issue here is that the public has to demand the commensurate spending cuts as opposed to raising taxes and spending more each year.
The hitch here is China, Japan and the Fed buying Treasury Bonds. Until we can pressure or convince these three to stop enabling this irresponsible Congress and President, the spending spree will go on indefinitely. This should be the focus of our efforts.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
SS-this gets me fired up - hath the Dem's no shame? Wislon seems
September 27, 2009 - 13:08 ET by Gary HallSS - this gets me fired up - hath the Dem's no shame? Joe Wislon's comment suddenly seems pale in comparison. After all, even liberal fact checkers have found that much in Obama's address was not actually truthful. But Wilson, is only one brave voice here (and I too - despise anyone being so brash in such a setting); in the clip which Noel linked, I'm reminded that that demonstrating rudeness is typical of the way that Democrats, as a group, seem to act - and they get away with it.
I attempted to introduce a point above; that President Bush's SS reform proposals were not radical. They had considerable support on the other side of the isle; it would only be politics that got in the way.
The MSM's reaction to Bush's effort to reform SS, as well as anything else, finds it's home in the same sewer pit that paints the Democrat's reaction to his comments - pure partisan politics.
The driving force behind the vile hatred for Bush's effort was the concept of voluntary partial private accounts for younger folks. A majority of Americans supported the idea. President Clinton had often entertained the concept as one of his own. And the late Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan championed the proposal.
Would the Democratic congress have treated Senator Moynihan in the the same manner? Would the MSM have treated Moynihan the same?
A good read: Senator Monihan's Legacy
A view that the entire national MSM kept off the table for discussion during President Bush's bold effort to reform SS in an effort to save it for future generations - our children. And now, it appears, for us.
(;~> gary
I "hope" I get some "change"
September 27, 2009 - 13:29 ET by FastEdSince my years are close to collecting on MY security - how come when proposals are offered to help the people, the demolibs are the ones who object? Who is the party of NO?!? They have no sense, no savings, no grace, no brains! BUT, the economy is getting better - since his assult to get healthcare passed, at least 15 million have gotten insurance! (dems speak of 45-'6-'7 million uninsured, yet O man said 30 million - so I'm felling better!)
Proud member of the MOB - Move Over Barack, we want our country back!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
As I was reading Noel's article, I developed this mental picture
September 27, 2009 - 13:36 ET by R D Helm...of all the prominent dims, Reid, Pelosi, Fwank, Dodd, etc., standing in the wheelhouse of the Titanic, furiously fighting over control of the fatally stricken ship, even as the stern descended beneath the surface.
These hideous people don't give a damn if SS leaves this nation utterly destitute, so long as they get that one, last vote from some blue-hair in Peoria.
-Dave
The elections of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
Tagline
September 27, 2009 - 13:48 ET by jaywlYour "last chance" tag is so right. It or a variation should be in every ad against those supporting this transformation.
Snide Remark
September 27, 2009 - 13:44 ET by jaywlCan't help myself. I just saw the rerun of Fox News Sunday. Sen. Feinstein commented that the Afghan review is covering a ten year program so it is entirely correct that the President, I. Barrack Hussein Obama, take his sweet time in deciding a strategy. Ten years, long time. Oh yes! That way will leave lots of time to rush the Health Care Catastrophe through in the next 2-3 days. No time to waste! The year after the re-election campaign is right around the corner. We must start collecting the money now (before benefits are paid out) so the staggering deficits can be reduced a little before the election. Hurry.
Is this one reason they are in such a hurry?
When Pres. Bush was warning
September 27, 2009 - 13:44 ET by KevroyWhen Pres. Bush was warning everybody that social security was in big trouble, Bawney Fwanks sent a letter to his consituents that said,
"The fact is that if Social Security is credited with every penny that
was paid in and will be paid in for it - as it certainly should be -
there is no crisis, and there does not even to begin to be any
difficulty until forty years or more from now."
I just received my latest
September 27, 2009 - 13:45 ET by KevroyI just received my latest update letter from social security. So far I have paid in over $60,000. Can you imagine what that amount would be with compounding interest? The morons in DC should be in PRISON.
you didn't...
September 27, 2009 - 13:57 ET by NDanielsonman, you didn't just say spade, did you? you're gonna be Joe Wilsoned.
you inspired me to dig deeper...
September 27, 2009 - 15:32 ET by sarainitaly"We are spending enough of our kids' money," the letter said. "Our country needs to get back to following the teachings of Romans 13:8, which says we should 'let no debt remain outstanding.'"
"In our view, shifting financial obligations of this magnitude to future generations is immoral, unacceptable and unsustainable," the senators' letter said.
"All of us are willing to work with your administration on a plan for...reform that will keep the system solvent for the long term," the senators said. "But we are concerned about the fiscal crisis facing the nation."
Pelosi said the president would be met by people every step of the way who support keeping the system the way it is.
Can you say HYPOCRITES!?
These are quotes from a 2005 article, Dems Rally Against Social Security Plan
Pelosi said,"the president would be met by people every step of the way who support keeping the [Social Security] system the way it is."
But now, when Republicans are worried about out of control spending, huge deficits, and are working to develop plans for health care reform that won't bankrupt the country, they are hateful, racist, teabagging extremists who just want to see people die?
Nice job, Noel, and there's more ....
September 27, 2009 - 16:12 ET by Tom Blumer.... because although the system will run a small surplus for the fiscal year, the last three months will should cash deficits.
As noted in this NB post on Wednesday:
- July had a cash deficit of $523 million.
- August's deficit was $5.76 BILLION.
- September, based on pathetic collections overall so far, will very likely come in even worse than August.
Three additional points:
- As long as unemployment stays high, the monthly cash deficits will continue, as will the incentive/ned to "retire" early to get SocSec benefits.
- Even if employment picks up again, demographics will work against taxes coming in ever catching up to benefits paid, meaning that cash deficits will be more or less permanent.
The biggest crock in the AP report is the second paragraph:
There is virtually no money in the Social Security Trust Fund because almost all of that $2.5 trillion has been lent to the rest of the government -- and spent. So there's a big IOU from the rest of the government that is about $12 trillion in debt. The "surpluses" have NOTHING to with Social Security's ability to pay benefits, because they have long since been raked off.
Ah yes.....
September 27, 2009 - 16:48 ET by BlondeThe old "robs Peter to pay Paul" ruse that the government always runs...it makes me just LONG for Obamacare. Truly. /sarc off
I hope he fails, too.
Tom
September 27, 2009 - 17:11 ET by Noel SheppardTom,
It's actually an interesting point, because what most people don't know is that the treasury paper held by the Trust Fund is not like regular paper: it can't be sold on the open market. So, when the Fund has to raise money to pay benefits not covered by contributions, the Treasury will be forced to sell more paper to raise money to pay off the Fund's needs.
However, compared to our current and foreseeable budget deficits, SS shortfalls will be almost irrelevant. Honestly, what's $10 billion in the grand scheme of things? :-) ns
Holy moly NS
September 27, 2009 - 17:23 ET by BlondeTHAT I did not know.
We are so screwed. I am going to try to make my Exit, Stage Right to CR even faster now.
I hope he fails, too.
Sheesh, Noel
September 27, 2009 - 18:32 ET by R D Helm"...the treasury paper held by the Trust Fund is not like regular paper: it can't be sold on the open market."
"...the Treasury will be forced to sell more paper to raise money to pay off the Fund's needs."
It's gonna be one hell of a train-wreck, isn't it? :-O
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
I believe, well I believe a
September 27, 2009 - 18:44 ET by Dan The Man 2I believe, well I believe a lot of idiot things, that the congress will confiscate all 401K, IRA, 457 and the like and replace those funds in there with promises. This will happen under some obscure rules no one has scrutinized or shudder "marshal law" type actions. All for the good of the nation.
The premise for confiscation will be that these instruments were created under IRS government rules. If all else fails the government may change the rules. They did it for the car comapnies and for teh banks and will do so for Joe Sixpack.
I will now adjust my aluminum foil hat.
I am still gonna disagree sir.
September 27, 2009 - 18:59 ET by JWFIra's and 401k's are private property just like your house or your car. What they can do is make them taxible just like your bank account or regular brokerage account. And yes, I think it is something the socialist loving Democrats just might try.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
They are in teh care of a
September 27, 2009 - 19:20 ET by Dan The Man 2They are in teh care of a government program administered by the IRS. It already has rules on your "private" money and can and will change those rules at any time. I do have a question for ya, did you ever think that the government would "lend" money to private banks and then set rules about when they can pay it back? Or rules for car manufacturers that should have gone bankrupt and then as with Chrysler screw the first lien holders and then do it again?
Like I ended my post with ajusting my foil hat, itis now considered as out in the nether regions but who knows asDuh One will do anything he thinks he can get away with.
BTW call me Dan, sir sounds too formal. But whatever you call me dont call me late for breakfast.
JWF, They aren't going to merely tax them
September 27, 2009 - 19:23 ET by R D Helm...they are going to snatch them outright.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
Which leads me to wonder
September 27, 2009 - 19:25 ET by FeynmanFanWhich leads me to wonder when people are going to start going to court and challenging the constitutionality of some of the things the Obama administration is doing.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Re 401K/IRA
September 27, 2009 - 20:46 ET by slickwillie2001They would not use the words confiscate, they are not dumb. They might pass a law that says all IRAs must be invested in US government bonds. It's the patriotic thing to do. Sacrifice. Put some skin in the game. Do it on a sliding scale, so in 2010 20% has to be in US bonds, then 40% the next year, etc. That will replace what the Chinese and Japanese will no longer buy. It ends up the same thing, it just sounds better.
US May Face Armageddon if China, Japan Don't Buy Debt: http://www.cnbc.com
But if inflation runs wild, it really won't matter because the money in those accounts becomes worthless. Do you think a Marxist like the Bamster cares about inflation? Runaway inflation is just another way to transfer wealth. It's Cloward-Piven. Lenin said that the way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. Who suffers the most from inflation? Who suffers the least? (Hint, government workers and unionized workers.)
Inflation is a stealthy way to steal the money right out of your pocket.
The Bamster can't make it obvious that he is going to destroy our country in order to rebuild the system, all he needs to do is set us on an unalterable course that leads to that conclusion.
They would not use the
September 27, 2009 - 21:25 ET by Dan The Man 2They would not use the words confiscate, they are not dumb. They might pass a law that says all IRAs must be invested in US government bonds. It's the patriotic thing to do.
Sounds like a plan to me. It sounds like what they did in WWII, buy war bonds to support your country. I bet they will frame it in such terms also. And tehy will try to push it through lickety split so we dont see the fine print.
I can see it now "The Republican are supposed to be the patriot party, yet they dont support this patriotism." Dang Im scared.
I wonder how the Government
September 27, 2009 - 20:50 ET by NL207I wonder how the Government will fare when Joe Sixpack turns out to be Joe Sixgun?
Actually Noel, it is a
September 28, 2009 - 13:32 ET by dscottActually Noel, it is a VERY BIG deal. In prior years all of the SS trust fund surplus were used to fund the general budget, this used to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. This year they were projecting a $147 billion surplus. The cash flow is now reversed, not only can't they depend on missappropriating $147 billion in surplus SS collections they will in short order be forced to fund SS retirees payees out of the general fund to the tune of $89 billion a year (2.5 trillion/28 years), a fund which was dedicated to paying the expenses of other programs. It's a double whammy $147 + $89 = $236 billion change in the annual operating budget NOT the mere $10 billion you think. $236 billion that now has to be BORROWED every year on top of all the other deficit spending.
Furthermore, what did Orszag know and when did he know it? Obama's budget and 10 year forcast were intregally based on the knowledge of SS trust fund receipts. The upshot is the federal budget submitted by Obama I believe was a deliberate falsehood from the get go. They had to have known based on the trajectory of the monthly SS trust fund receipts their budget assumptions were FALSE. Ask yourself, what does a shady CFO and CEO do to preserve the value of the company in order not to scare off potential investors of stocks and bonds when the cash flow goes wrong????? Take a wild guess... Just like BoA, had the investors known of the real problems, the stock would have tanked and the board of directors voted against any wild spending.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I think we should start a pool...
September 27, 2009 - 18:21 ET by R D Helm...on exactly when Pelosi will (quietly) toss a bill into the hopper that will essentially call for the federal seizure of all private retirement accounts.
You know they are going to do it, it's only a matter of time.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
I'm gonna take the day
September 27, 2009 - 19:58 ET by FastEdAFTER the next election, so there will be plenty of time to NOT rush the vote.
Here's a question about this whole adminstration - WILL there be any roll-back, of any/everything this bunch of robber barons does?? Notwithstanding the lack of hoo-haas on the gop side, can the next congress, with luck, not so demolib dominated, un-vote the wack bills and stupidity of the Barney, Nancy, etc.???
Proud member of the MOB - Move Over Barack, we want our country back!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Re Rollback
September 27, 2009 - 21:00 ET by slickwillie2001No.
2010: If we are so lucky to win the House back in 2010, it will be by the slimmest of majorities. No way we win the Senate back. The House will allow us to block anything further, but rolling anything back will take a majority in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate. The Bamster would not sign any rollback anyway. Simple blocking is easy, doing something assertive is much harder.
2012: We will almost certainly take back the Presidency and hold the House. Taking back the Senate I would say is possible, but not with a veto-proof majority. So no rollback of Bamster programs in the Congress. Still, the new President could block and stealthily rollback administration programs like at the FCC, EPA, etc.
2014: With another election cycle a veto-proof majority in the Senate is possible. Therefore in 2015-16 some real rollback could be possible. We will be haunted however by the McCain-Snowe-Collins bipartisan fools.
And even if you rollback programs, you can't unspend the many trillions of dollars that the Bamster will spend. You can't fix a broken US dollar in an election cycle or two, and all the broken businesses can't be fixed overnight. You can't cancel Obamacare and overnight expect private insurance companies to suddenly be there. Some things can't be undone. Elections have consequences far beyond feel-good tokenism.
I think the Dems are going
September 27, 2009 - 21:11 ET by NL207I think the Dems are going to pass Obamacare with **NO** Republican support and I think the version of Obamacare they will pass will contain every last single objectionable thing the townhallers were opposing.
Under that state of affairs, I think it possible for a well organized opposition to take 60 - 100 seats in the House. Even the Senate might turn over.
More intriguing are the scandals which would be rocking the Democrats were the MSM not carrying their water. Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama all belong in prison. Obama has dirt leading right back to Blagojevich and Rezko. If these guys roll on him, he's done. Conyers wife has plead and its a lock that Conyers himself knew about and is involved as well. Rangel is a tax cheat. His frauds are enormous. Dodd has Countrywide dirt all over him. Pelosi amd Feinstein both have massive spousal conflicts of interest. Some people might think they knowingly directed federal money and contracts to aid their spouse's business interests.
When, in the past several
September 27, 2009 - 22:17 ET by RowaneWhen, in the past several cycles, have the Republicans ran "a well organized opposition?" I am starting to ready the mourning wear, I think my beloved country is done for.
******************************************************************************
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
The well organized part is
September 27, 2009 - 23:47 ET by NL207The well organized part is up to us the people. We need to clear the RINOs out of the Republican Party. One of the biggest problems Conservatives face at the polls is the muddying of the distinction between Conservative and Liberal. How many times have you heard from frustrated voters, "It doesn't make any difference which party I vote for. Politicians are all the same." This is the work of the RINOs and why they must be purged.
I predict that a shocking
September 27, 2009 - 23:53 ET by CooltomI predict that a shocking amount of Baby Boomers will opt for early retirement at 62. A lot have multiple retirement schemes (pensions, IRAs, 401K, just plain old cash, etc.) and can afford the SS penalty for early retirement.
I seriously doubt whether SSA or Wash DC has contemplated this phenomenum in their calculations. This would have happened even if the economy was in good shape. A lot of boomers are just plain tired of working and want to cash in on SS before the whole thing falls apart.
There is also a large segment of boomers who have put in their 30-35 years at guv and education jobs and can retire with a gold-plated pension and health plans.
I belong to a defined
September 28, 2009 - 00:03 ET by Dan The Man 2I belong to a defined pension plan and have not paid into SSI or Mediscam, well at least for teh money I made in teh City, for teh last 28 years. I have about half of the minimum done 5 years worth. I plan to do some more to get vested in SSI, but they will reduce my payout to 25% of what I would normally get. They may change teh rules and say I get nothing and thats ok as it would only be 200 per month if that.
One thing I must adress is "There is also a large segment of boomers who have put in their 30-35
years at guv and education jobs and can retire with a gold-plated
pension and health plans" because those folks usually make some sacrifice in money and upward advancement. In the good times the private sector may be paying 2 times what teh public sector pays; so we in government make sacrifices.
Also my pension plan is seperate from the City government and hopefully has funds to cover all retirees if no other funds are paid into it. So yes teh pension can be better than the outside but they are in teh benefits package and factored into whetherit is worth one to stay or not.
Aren't the Left so very
September 28, 2009 - 01:24 ET by DoktorFrankenAren't the Left so very clever to see a massive crisis and they were able to deflect it to another Congress and/or generation? At the very least they kicked it down the road where it will cost three times as much to solve the problem.
But the real problem won't start until they start taking much more money from US for the ''solution'' when they're just gonna steal that as well. But, at least they may have signs made up to show how they are ''saving'' everyone.
7 Articles
September 28, 2009 - 02:02 ET by LindamaeOnce again, read the Constitution. Article I tells us that Congress makes the laws and sets budgets. Article II tells us that the President enacts the laws by signing them or he may veto them directly or indirectly. This is called separation of powers so that both of these arms of our government are balanced. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the validity of the laws according to the Constitution.
It seems Bush had the right idea but it seems Congress prevented it from being carried out. The same thing happened in 2001 and 2002 when Bush tried to stop the loans being given out to those who could not afford them. And later McCain - and Greenspan - tried to stop the actions which finally destroyed our economy. Waxman, Waters, Frank, Dodd and Pelosi should be tried for treason for preventing the actions which would have averted our current disaster. Have you noticed how much coverage this was given? blink !!
Barney Frank: "There is no
September 28, 2009 - 09:15 ET by mangBarney Frank: "There is no crisis" (Fannie and Freddie)
Barney Frank: "There is no crisis" (Social Security)
Coming from you, Barney, that doesn't exactly make me feel better.
One thing I must adress is
September 28, 2009 - 12:48 ET by CooltomOne thing I must adress is "because those folks usually make some sacrifice in money and upward advancement. In the good times the private sector may be paying 2 times what teh public sector pays; so we in government make sacrifices. "
Public sector jobs pay on average 50% more than private sector (75K to 50K). When all benefits are added in the average is 100% more (120K to 60K).
Some sacrifice.
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/ohmy.aspx
Yeah right. The paper you
September 28, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Yeah right. The paper you have linked is not comparing apples to apples and highlights a few cherry picked cases. If you compare the same job and duties with those in private sector you will see the private wins out. And it does not factor in everything like time worked.
As far as the pensions the money for that is taken from the employees and put into a seperate account usually into a growth vehicle to make money. SSI could do taht, President Bush trie to change it but the congress stopped it.
BTW I work for teh City of Dallas and it is tough all over. The City also put 840 bodies out to pasture and I was one, but I did get more employment. The following shows me more the article is pure hogwash.
In Texas, the city of Dallas will likely cut funds to public parks, libraries and recreation centers, resulting in less maintenance, fewer books, shorter hours and program cancellations. An editorial in the Dallas News called for the private sector to kick in with contributions of cash and books.
So if a private individual put regular amounts into a retirement plan that featured growth they too could have a great pension plan. Some proffesions scuch as police, miltary and teachers have retirement plans that feature early retirement and that is one of the caRROTS FOR THAT PROFESSION. So if one desires what teh profession has to offer and understand the drawbacks then tehy too can have the same benes.
You seem to be for class warefare pitting teh individuals who thought out what they wanted and went for it against teh ones who wanted instant gratifications. Read up on teh Ant and teh grasshopper sometime.