The govt is collecting the most money ever...
and spending the most money ever...
Not a good thing...
More and more people who rely on the govt to live...
This is the fault of BOTH sides...but it will NEVER change
Friday, May 11, 2007
Biggest Gov't EVER!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Everyone talks about earmarks and pork, but the percentage spent on these things is miniscule compared to the big four-- social security, medicare, defense, and education.
To some extent, something like a flat tax may let us have our cake and eat it too-- with a high tempo of economic growth, we will be more able to pay for these things.
While helpful, that policy isn't totally a magic wand, and we'll eventually have to choose between cutting benefits or printing money. My preference is to see tax cuts, most of the programs streamlined, and a crackdown on the rampant corporate waste, fraud, and abuse in the DoD.
Dude! Social Security is self-funding. How many times will you read the truth and ignore it?
A program with 25 *trillion* dollars in unfunded liability (I exaggerate not) is not my definition of a "self-funding" program.
Show me where this ridiculous figure comes from. You can't of course.
Social Security's unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $3.7 trillion dollars which is less that what the Republics added to the National Debt over the past 6 years.
Jim--
I stand corrected. I must have posted the self-funding medicare number.
Hey Buddy, Can You Spare $86 trillion?
--The unfunded liability of the Social Security program grew by 20 percent (from $12.8 trillion to $15.3 trillion) while Congress dithered over reform proposals.
--But the Social Security gap is still smaller than the unfunded liability of just the Medicare prescription drug program, which weighs in at a robust $16.2 trillion.
--The total unfunded liability of Medicare topped $70 trillion (It’s actually $70.8 trillion. Round up or down to suit your taste.)
--The trustees’ estimate of the unfunded liability of the Medicare drug program actually shrank 11 percent from their 2005 estimate of $18.2 trillion. But that reduction was more than offset by a 2 percent increase in the unfunded liability of the physician insurance part of Medicare (from $25.8 trillion to $26.2 trillion) and a 16 percent surge in the unfunded liability of the hospital part of Medicare (from $24.4 trillion to $28.4 trillion).
Do you know what unfunded liability means?
An unfunded liability is money that you know you will have to pay in the future that you don't have money today to cover.
Here's a good example:
Assume:
It costs $100 a month on average to feed 1 person.
300,000,000 US population divided by 4 people per household equals 75,000,000 households.
US families do not currently have the money in the bank to pay for future meals.
Families will mature and children will move out, but they will have more mouths to feed. So assume there will always be at least 300,000,000 people and 75,000,000 households.
$100 x 4people x 12months x 75 years x 75,000,000 households presents an unfunded liability of $27,000,000,000,000. (That's $27 trillion).
We have a family meals crisis!
Now I'm not saying that there is NOT a problem with Medicare. But I am saying that there is not a crisis with Social Security.
"US families do not currently have the money in the bank to pay for future meals."
But they do have ongoing income that remains relatively steady in relation to a fixed amount of mouths to feed within the household. (Personally, the money we have in the bank we don't use for food. We buy our groceries on payday.)
But SS has no such comparable situation. In fact, the huge worry is that there are fewer "income earners" with more "mouths to feed" for the next few decades. So that liability is more and more unfunded as time passes. But hey, you're not worried. Just reduce the payments for those on SS to cover the shortfall, right? Yeah, I'm for that. NOT!
jim
Per Marshall Art - hence you have what is called "relevant" statistics.
Here's a clue, when people from both parties admit there's a problem with the funding of future SS needs, there's a damn problem!
Back to the original topic. Sometimes I'm afraid the conservatives have lost the debate. Especially, when practically everyone I meet wants to know "what gov't is going to do for me." What a sad, sad, state of affairs.
Just so you know, my answer to "what's gov't going to do for me?"
Stay the hell out of my way, I hope!
Blamin, there's a significant difference between the Dem position that some adjustments need to be made to pay out full benefits after 2052 and the Republics who claim that SS is broken, insolvent, in crisis, and should thus be destroyed.
Marshall, there is a very steady projected income to pay SS benefits through at least 2052, worst case, and far beyond possibly. It could pay reduced benefits if nothing is done, but could pay full benefits with minor tweaking.
jim, jimmy, jimboy
Which Republican stated "SS should be destroyed"? None! There's plenty that claim it should be fixed.
By the way, why are you people so afraid of self directed SS? You can't stand the thought of citizens actually having more control of their own money than the government?
Post a Comment