Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSUN EDITORIAL:
A matter of survival
Social Security and Medicare are a part of America’s social fabric
Monday, Aug. 9, 2010 | 2:06 a.m.
It would be difficult to overstate the positive effect that Social Security and Medicare have had on the lives of Americans since the two massive federal programs were enacted in 1935 and 1965, respectively. Without these programs, the United States would be without a safety net for tens of millions of individuals who rely each year on the monthly checks and medical services essential to their lives.
Last week’s report by the trustees who oversee Social Security and Medicare provided a mixed picture of their future based on projected revenue and demand. But the projections weren’t so dire as to call for a complete overhaul, as some extremist politicians would prefer. There is no need to simply roll the dice by privatizing Social Security and Medicare as Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle advocates.
Republicans such as Steve Forbes say that younger workers should establish 401(k)-type accounts to replace Social Security and have health savings accounts instead of Medicare. As fragile as the stock market is and as ill-behaved as Wall Street has become, why subject the nation’s safety net to such risk-taking?
Social Security, which distributed benefits to 53 million people by the end of last year, is entering a rough patch where the trust fund will be paying out more money than it is collecting this year and next. This has happened before — in fact in 11 other years between 1959 and 1981 — yet Social Security managed to survive.
With the trust fund expected to be depleted by 2037, Congress should consider several options on the table that could help keep the program solvent for decades. As we said in May, recommendations by the Senate Special Committee on Aging include increasing employee contributions, lowering cost-of-living increases and raising the retirement age. Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, said at the time that all Social Security needs are “modest tweaks.”
The short-term prognosis for Medicare is more upbeat, with the trustees reporting that its trust fund will last through 2029, 12 years longer than previously thought due largely to the nation’s new health care reforms. There are still long-term warning signs for Medicare, but it would be far more preferable for Congress to fix a reliable program that was used last year by more than 46 million seniors and disabled individuals than to replace it with unproven gimmicks such as health savings accounts.
No advocate of private accounts to replace Social Security and Medicare has yet to offer a satisfactory response as to what would happen if an individual’s investments dried up. Yet Social Security has been there for its recipients for more than 70 years and Medicare has endured for more than 40 years, track records that would be difficult to beat.
Instead of trying to score partisan points by using scare tactics, it is time for Republican naysayers to realize that Social Security and Medicare are programs that are too essential to be replaced.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
The current pay-as-you go social security system, owned by the federal government, is unsustainable. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a trust fund at all. Your money, paid into FICA over a lifetime of working, was not held "in trust" for you to pay for your retirement.
The money that comes into the fund at the beginning of the week goes out in the form of social security payments at the end of the week. Anything that's left over gets taken by greedy poiliticians,much of it to pay for pork-barrel spending in an effort to buy your votes. This has been going on since the social security fund was established back in the 30's, when there were 10 workers to support every retiree. Today there are 2 workers to support every retiree...and just recently it was announced that, for the first time in its history, more money went out than was taken in.
If the government had encouraged workers to simply establish their own private account, where they could deposit part of their earnings in their OWN private fund in their OWN name, we would now have a great system of private accounts that people would have an in their own name with money being accumulated from their own earnings. If a person died prior to retirement age, the fund would be left to their heirs.
The reason private retirement accounts are unacceptable to the government is that the politicians could not access the money -- funds would be locked into private accounts that only the owner, the individual worker, controls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The wisdom of Thomas Jefferson tells us, "That government is best which governs the least,because its people discipline themselves."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since the 2005 SS fix attempt Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid D-NV, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-CA, and the Democratic Social Security point man House Ways and Means Minority Leader Rep have done nothing.
Charley Rangel D-MI, have argued that there is no problem until 2042 or later. Rep Rangel has said (on May 12, 2005), "I don't think we should rush out and do more harm" and since this is a pay as you go system, then we should NOT tweak the system or do any changes until 2042 or later.
During republican Hoover's Great Depression many poor elderly citizens went hungry and homeless for months and years on end. Some actually died of starvation because our nation lacked even a minimal social safety net to aid the most vulnerable.
FDR saw that as a national disgrace and vowed to fix it. He and a Democratic-controlled Congress did just that over the howls and objections of the clueless conservative opposition.
Republicans hated Social Security when it was introduced and still hate it today. Assisting the middle class or any group except those at the top is against everything they stand for.
It took private sleuths hired by Medicare an average of six months last year to refer fraud cases to law enforcement.
According to congressional investigators, the exact average was 178 days. By that time, many cases go cold, making it difficult to catch perpetrators, much less recover money for taxpayers.
A recent inspector general report also raised questions about the contractors, who play an important role in Medicare's overall effort to combat fraud.
Out of $835 million in questionable Medicare payments identified by private contractors in 2007, the government was only able to recover some $55 million, or about 7 percent, the report found.
Medicare overpayments -- they can be anything from a billing error to a flagrant scam -- totaled more than $36 billion in 2009, according to the Obama administration.
President Barack Obama has set a high priority on battling health care fraud and waste, hoping for savings to help pay for the new law covering millions now uninsured.
Medicare's private eyes don't seem to be helping much.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, questions whether taxpayers are getting good value from for-hire fraud busters. His office, which is investigating the contracting program, obtained Medicare data for the last four years on how long it took to refer cases to federal agents.
"Medicare is already a payand chase system when it comes to fraud, waste and abuse," said Grassley. "Providers are paid first, then questioned if there's a problem. Add to that mix contractors who sit on cases of ongoing fraud when they should be referring them to law enforcement, and you have a recipe for disaster."
As ranking Republican on the Senate panel that oversees Medicare, Grassley is trying to find out why it takes the contractors so long, and how much the government is currently paying the companies. In 2005, taxpayers paid them $102 million.
At least seven private companies Medicare calls "Program Safeguard Contractors" are working to detect fraud, part of a program that dates to the late 1990s. They oversee specific areas of jurisdiction, and some have more than one contract with Medicare.
The contractors investigate allegations of wrongdoing, acting as scouts for the government's criminal investigators. And they're also supposed to conduct "proactive" analysis to spot emerging fraud trends. For instance, they can use sophisticated computer models to scan millions of Medicare records for suspicious patterns to identify dishonest providers.
In practice, their performance has been uneven. The contractors have widely different track records. One identified $266 million in overpayments in 2007, while another found just $2.5 million, the Health and Human Services inspector general said in May.
Earlier, the inspector general found gaping differences in the number of new cases the contractors generate for law enforcement. Some had hundreds of cases, while others were in the single digits. Most were doing a poor job at spotting new fraud trends.
By using contractors that can review claims across multiple providers and benefit categories, we will be better able to identify cases of waste, fraud or abuse.
In fairness to the contractors, the low collection rate may not just be their fault. Investigators say that when Medicare notifies a provider about a disputed payment, the fraudulent ones often just close up and move on.
The present Congressman and Senators that were in office while all this rape and pillaging of the Medicare system was going on are asking you to vote them back into office. They want you to give them more time to cogitate and bloviate on this problem. I say kick every one of those slackjawed peckerwoods out of office. There has been a Medicare problem in this country since 1965. Who is watching the money? No one. That's who? Never, never vote for an incumbent. They're just picking your pocket.
"Instead of trying to score partisan points by using scare tactics, it is time for Republican naysayers to realize that Social Security and Medicare are programs that are too essential to be replaced."
The key word there is Republicans. Those are the only people who keep coming up with lamebrained ideas all the time about these programs.
I watched a show yesterday where they insisted they should raise the age for eligibility for Social Security. And some young talking head said that people live longer nowadays, so it shouldn't be a problem. And this young lady saying this wasn't a doctor! She had no statistics to go by. She was just throwing it out there as some kind of Republican ideal that all of us should find worthy of consideration because it resounded direct from her mostly empty brain pan cavity and exploded out of her vocal chords.
And I'm also tired of banking officials who are Republicans all telling us the younger people should start 401k's and also put Social Security over on Wall Street. It's crap. They don't wish to provide a service. They only wish to make money off of it. They would LOVE to get their grubby fingers on those billions of dollars. And, I guarantee you, in the end, after they played with it, picked it down to nothing but bone cleaner than a buzzard on a coyote carcass, that money would be gone pretty much like the economic meltdown we faced in 2007-2008.
I don't even want to get into what Sharron Angle thinks. She wants to get rid of it. Then she says, no, I said "privatize" it. Which basically means get rid of it, but she wants to point out she has some kind of college degree to say big words like that. Then when she gets called out on that, she says, no, no, no, I meant "personalize" it. Which means, I still have a college degree and use big words, but now that I got this backlash, I got to find another big word to use to make it sound like something else, but it still means the same thing!
KEEP THESE CREEPY REPUBLICANS AWAY FROM SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS!
I guess that's what I'm saying.....
Don't see that many people wanting to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, except people like Forbes who inherited his wealth. People worked for airlines and steel mills for 25 years and didn't get their private sector pensions. Who hasn't got their Social Security when it was due? Private sector failed, government worked.
Wall Street wants the privatisation so they can make millions on fees for people's 401ks etc.
Angle still has not answered where the money for her Social Security phase out will come from, manna from Heaven?
It really doesn't matter what Sharron Angle says. If and when she is elected she will perform 180 degrees in the opposite direction. They all do. Angle, if elected can't do doodly squat when she gets in. She will just go along until Steven Horsford defeats her for Senate when that time comes.
If government got out of health care, the prices would drop. Social security has been responsible for the worst ponzi scheme in the history of the world. And the government prosecuted Bernie.
Individual accounts that are not touchable by the government, just like Harry has should be standard and not the exception. OF course if the government got out of peoples lives like they we4re supposed out be then we would all be better off. With our current president they want to crawl into bed and into our daily lives like a mother that can't let go of her kids. She is unwanted and unloved and will be rejected like the witch she is.
Social Security and Medicare are scam systems.
They require population to grow at a certain rate for them to be funded.
Social security orginally had a 1% total tax on wages. Now it is 15% total tax and that will soon rise even higher.
In the 1970's they predicted the Medicare costs in the 1990's. The actual costs came in over 10x's worst and that was after the removing the effect of inflation.
Medicare taxes continue to rise, too.
Combined the two programs carry an unfunded liability of $140 trillion.
Both programs are doomed to failed as they squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the working class.
Not that difficult to beat actually. Private retirement accounts have been around much longer and are paying higher returns... You still would come out ahead after 30 years of investment if you retired in this government encouraged economic crash. Furthermore, people younger than 35 are expected to pay in more than they get out, unless benefits are cut, retirement ages increased or taxes are raised to mammoth proportions (meaning we all have less wealth to spend and invest now). More on social security myths and facts: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/07/3...
To accuse greedy private business people of stealing social security monies is just plain wrong!
Let's look at the truth. The government requires everyone to contribute to F.I.C.A. Just look at your pay stub...FICA tax comes out of your check and goes directly to the federal government. The only ones who had access to steal those funds are the politicians in Washington. They broke trust with the people...they literally stole money earned by individual workers.
Various people here say the conservatives were against FDR when he established the social security "trust" fund. You betcha they were! Because they didn't trust the politicians to hold the money "in reserve" for the individuals from whom they took it.
Conservatives proved to be right. Over the years, generations of conservative Americans have pleaded with the federal government to stop "borrowing" from the social security trust fund. Their pleas were ignored as greedy politicians took all the surplus (that was needed for the retirees of today) and spent it on pet projects or to line their own pockets.
This practice was done by politicians of both major political parties. No particular party or group of politicians were solely to blame. But, the private sector had nothing to do with this massive rip-off...it was all the done by Washington politicians.
Common sense tells us that the people are better at taking care of their hard-earned money than the government is. It's high time we stop the politicians in Washington from excessive taxing and excessive spending!
-----------------------------------------------------
Once again, the wisdom of Jefferson rings true,
"My reading of history convinces me that
most bad government results from too much government."
------------------------------------------------------
mred rings the TRUTH BELL...
then sgtrock, JanK, and our boy Pat the Think Tanker try to talk you out of it...
typical of the "I, Me, Mine" republican party;
Government=EVIL!!!
Corporate America="God's Gift to the "little people"...
"BE PATIENT! It'll trickle down to you small folks!!!"
Talk about your PONZI SCHEMERS!!!
The awesome Sharron Mangle has a PLAN to "save" it. She's gonna put back in and "lock up" the $2.5 trillion Harry Reid personally surreptitiously replaced with "IOUs".
All while further reducing or eliminating every tax in sight.
But, y'see, she's gonna eliminate the DOE, EPA, IRS, and Dept of ED.
The combined federal FY 2011 budgets of which come to $100.7 billion. So, that gets her 4% of the way there.
I guess God will proved the rest.
Brilliant!
Patrick Gibbons, of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which is funded by the conservative Cato Institute and calls itself "a free-market think tank that seeks private solutions to public challenges" not surprisingly is pushing his company's and the Cato Institute's position again here.
Patrick's employer would like to privatize social security and basically roll back Roosevelt's New Deal, even in the midst of a massive recession created in part by a dismantling of the New Deal's financial regulations.
Patrick offers this helpful solution:
"Not that difficult to beat actually. Private retirement accounts have been around much longer and are paying higher returns..."
What a surprise!
The bottom line is that Republicans fought against Roosevelt's New Deal back in the 1930s. And have been trying to undo it ever since.
Back in 1928, there was no FDIC (which Roosevelt created). So when banks went bust, people lost 100% of their savings. If any Republicans' savings accounts were saved this time round, during the bank busts of the Great Recession--they can thank Roosevelt and the Democrats.
The Republicans did not want unemployment insurance. Despite the fact that 25% of the nation was unemployed during the Great Depression. They would still like to get rid of it and complain like wolves over every unemployment extension--despite the fact that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression.
The Republicans fought against Social Security. In their world, people should just work until they drop dead. By the way, there was no talk of "privitization" back then (in the 30s). The Republicans just thought that if you lost your job--tough.
Any Republican who has received unemployment insurance or Social Security can thank Roosevelt and the Democrats.
The list goes on and on. And it is a boring one.
Bottom line, Gibbons and his ilk believe that the best of all possible worlds is one in which corporations have free reign. And the govt is the bogey man. Until they need their bank accounts "saved" or end up in an unemployment line. Or until they hit 65. Or want to use a library. Or want their plane inspected by someone other than the company that owns it before take off.
And for all the yammering about saving money, one only has to look at the basic fact that Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy and quickly tripled the national debt. Bush I did the same and doubled it. Bush II did the same and doubled it again.
And who owes all of the money that the wealthy got out of paying? We do. The American people. The debt was shifted onto us by the same yokels who continue to howl about how unfair the New Deal is.
Insane.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
AP
Some things never change....
For example, the group that wanted to do away with both Social Security and Medicare 20 years ago are still out there arguing the same old tired points.....
They predicted 20 years ago that both systems were going to become insolvent. Of course they were wrong then and they're wrong now...
ColinFromLasVegas says it best:
"Instead of trying to score partisan points by using scare tactics, it is time for Republican naysayers to realize that Social Security and Medicare are programs that are too essential to be replaced."
The American people love both Social Security and Medicare.
Any politician who does anything that will do great damage to or greatly change either program will find themselves on the outside, looking in...
In short, they will be "tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail."
Americans don't want to "privatize" either system. The thought of turning over to Wall Street both Social Security and Medicare scares the average American to death......particularly after the Wall Street melt down in 2007-2008.
Remember when the "clueless man from Texas'" attempted to change Social Security and get Wall Street involved in the system?
If my memory serves me correctly, George W. Bush never got to first base with his plan
to "privatize" it.
Even members of his own party were running and hiding from George....
I can well remember some of the things that Ronald Reagan said about Social Security when he was running for the presidency in 1980.
He talked about how the system was breaking the bank and how the system needed to be greatly changed or done away with....
Of course, that was before he was elected.
Once elected he did a complete reversal and worked with the Democrats to "shore up" Social Security and extend it into the 21st century...
In short, the Gipper knew that the American people didn't want their Social Security done away with or even "privatized."
Of course, the Gipper , like many presidents before him and after him, borrowed from Social Security big time during his stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yep, some things never change...
Who is doing the scaring? You mean, Democrats like Reid, who tell seniors that people like Angle are going to take their social security away.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Most Americans, especially those under 45, believe that social security benefits will be greatly reduced for them.
Great program....once was a 1% tax now it is a 15% and will only get bigger.
AmericanPatriot is on a roll this morning...
I plan to save his post....the post tells it exactly as it is. Only a complete idiot will attempt to refute what he said.
Present day Republicans will never admit that FDR's New Deal has prevented the current Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression.....
The various safety nets placed in our system by the New Deal has kept millions of Americans from having to stand in a bread line or sleep in the local park....
We should be thankful that "Hoover blankets" have not been found, dusted off and replaced with "Bush blankets."
Without Social Security, how many of today's Americans would be destitute? 20 million...30 million, maybe more?
I grew up hearing my relatives talk about the Great Depression, and can well remember my grand father telling how he lost all the family savings in a bank that had gone belly-up.
My grand father says that in some ways he was lucky....the bank gave him 5 cents on the dollar.
Many banks couldn't even do that....
Those voters out there who are wishing and hoping that the GOP will regain control of Congress this November, and take back the White House in 2012, best be careful what they wish for....
The party that put us in our current mess are waiting in the wings, just waiting to take back control of the government and drive the economic bus deeper into the ditch....
CorporalPebble said....
"Who is doing the scaring? You mean, Democrats like Reid, who tell seniors that people like Angle are going to take their social security away."
The last time I looked, that's exactly what the "crazy lady" was saying....
Take it away.....privatize it! What's the difference once the greedy little crooks on Wall Street get their hands on the money?
The average woman gets $900 a month SS and the average man $1100. WOW Don't spend it all in one place.
FAQ @ socialsecurity.gov (question #3)
Question:
"Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?"
Answer:
"The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve)."
_________________
Because Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy / trickle-down / voodoo economic scheme failed miserably to generate the revenues as advertised and theorized deficits began to balloon.
The cure? Punk the middle class by taxing their SS contributions. St Ronny's flawed economic policies created a sea of red ink and SS was his life preserver.
Patrick.. Private retirement accounts do not pay returns. The returns are a function of the skill sets of the people managing the money. The greatest bull market in history for financial assets was from 1982 until about 1999. The markets turned in double-digit returns. How did individual investors do in their IRA s and 401(k)s. They returned about 3% which is less than they would've earned by just leaving their money in money market funds. Schools don't teach people how to invest money. Most people don't have a clue as to what the difference is between a stock, bond or alternative investment. Most professionals who get degrees from prestigious colleges and universities in finance don't even beat the market averages. If people who get advanced degrees in finance from schools like Harvard business and Wharton can generate above-average returns what makes you think anyone else can. Trillions of dollars were lost when the tech bubble exploded in the 1999 2000 tech melt down. Currently people are losing a large chunk of their wealth with the decline in real estate prices.
By the time most Americans are 70 years old they are dirt poor and living in $1000 month Social Security check. Household incomes for elderly families are about 20K a year.
America was around almost 200 years before Social Security and Medicare came into play. How did we do? At the turn-of-the-century life expectancy was 47 years and one of the main causes of death was job-related.
If it was possible for the average man to save, invest and build great wealth it would have been done from the 1770s to the 1930s. How did the average Joe do during that time. He didn't.
Lady Gogo is back to flood the forum with Cut and Paste.
Therefore my earlier post will be repeated.
______________
FAQ @ socialsecurity.gov (question #3)
Question:
"Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?"
Answer:
"The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve)."
_________________
Because Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy / trickle-down / voodoo economic scheme failed miserably to generate the revenues as advertised and theorized deficits began to balloon.
The cure? Punk the middle class by taxing their SS contributions. St Ronny's flawed economic policies created a sea of red ink and SS was his life preserver.
LastThroes makes several factual points about Ronnie Raygun and Social Security...
Ronnie's claim to fame was the fact that he was once a "B Hollywood actor" and was use to standing in front of a camera, and reading lines that some one else had written...
He was basically a facade....."presidential platitude" Reagan...perfect description of the "Dixon flash."
He did help move the Social Security System forward into the 21st century, but what would the "Gipper" have done if he couldn't have borrowed big time from Social Security?
In other words, it was to his advantage to "shore up" the system. It was his own personal "piggy bank."
I always get a kick out of those people who try to portray the "Gipper" as a "hands on president" who knew everything that was going on...
Nancy's Ronnie slept through Cabinet Meetings, and allowed his wife to tweak his daily schedule, depending upon what her astrologer told her...
I guess it's safe to say that Ronnie's presidency was "in the stars"........determined by forces bigger than all of us! Ha! Ha! Ha!
This is as relevant today as it was in 2004. Nothing has changed. The Republicans simply continue their battle to destroy the New Deal and substitute permanent tax cuts for the wealthy in its place. Gee, that would be like going back to 1928, wouldn't it? To how life was just prior to the Great Depression?
December 7, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST, NYT
Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.
I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.
There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.
Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.
The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem."
But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year."
Continued at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinio...
Health savings accounts...Tell the kids that just got the $2,500,000.00 in bills from UMC for the flu about HSAs. You can tell Forbes inherited his cash. Total retirement assets in the United States are currently sitting at about $15 trillion. This includes the trillions that are sitting in public pension funds plus all forms of self-directed retirement accounts and defined contribution plans. The total value of all of these plans and assets wouldn't cover the nation's medical bills for six years.
I don't know how much money is currently in health savings accounts. My guess is that these assets in total wouldn't cover the nation's medical bills for 30 minutes.
You'll notice that Angle doesn't want to get rid of the Dept. of the Interior. Why? That's where her husband worked for 30 years, getting great healthcare and now a fine pension. The Angles don't need Social Security or Medicare. The government which she hates so much is providing for her just fine. She's a true hypocrite.
ggws writes:
"Also, as posted yesterday, the myth regarding the "Explosion" of the deficit under Ronald Reagan."
Hmmmm. Not sure where you are getting your statistics, but they do not at all agree with those on Wikipedia, which portrays just the opposite of what you are saying (federal debt as a percentage of GDP).
Kennedy--debt went down
Johnson--debt went down
Nixon--debt went down
Ford--went slightly up
Carter--debt went down.
Reagan--shot up
Bush I--shot up
Clinton--went down
Bush II--shot up
No data on Obama, but Obama is digging us out of the last president's imploded economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_de...
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflat...
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-cont...
AP
Gogo....so what is the Republical solution to costly wars, million dollar hospital bills, Medicare, SS??? Raise retirement age to 70 yeah right..zero percent of the world wide labor force is still working at 70. Only 20% of Americans still work at 65 and record numbers are leaving the work force early and taking reduced benefits.
If you don't think there are as many Republicans as Democrats on these programs you are living in a fantasy world.
Zip, private sector retirement accounts pay about more than 3 percent. The 30 year average for the stock market has consistently hit around 8 percent. Most research also tends to show that private sector accounts would pay out more than current social security accounts http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicati...
Finally, social security robs a considerable amount of income and distorts people's preference to save for the future. Low returns on the "investment" and lower incomes earlier in life contribute to the situation later. Don't forget, retirees are also more likely to own their own homes and have a positive net worth, compared to younger workers, many of whom have a negative worth.
AP, Social security will now cover only 76 percent of the promised benefits. Private unemployment insurance existed before the government took it over. Finally, Republicans created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to halt bank failures by providing direct government loans - the RFC was later merged with the FDIC under Roosevelt. Your black and white Republican vs.Democrat/ Sith vs. Jedi arguments are utterly without a factual basis.
Its funny....no very, very funny!
My little carpetbagger buddy from Chicago actually believes that any problem that we might currently have with Social Security, or the economy, or the Middle East will be fixed by the present day Republican Party if they are allowed to take back control of the government...
Keep in mind that he's talking about the "party of NO" actually having a plan that will benefit each and every American....A plan that will move this country forward!
He continues to believe that Harry Reid will lose his seat in the Senate come November, and Obama will not win re-election in 2012...
Not only that, he believes that the Bush tax cuts should be extended, and he believes that "trickle down economic" actually works...
AmericanPatriot has, time after time, clearly validated the fact that Ronnie Reagan increased the national debt by 186%.
Of course the two Bush guys also did much the same thing....Bush senior increased the debt by 62% and Bush junior increased the debt by 98%.
Some how, in his own tiny little mind, the Chicago carpetbagger has convinced himself that the GOP is the party of fiscal conservatism....
We just need to put all of our eggs in their basket! Wow!
El Lobo,
Explain exactly how President Reagan increased the national debt: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html...
Gogo...Medicare and Social Security have 100% participation. They aint goin no place.
My wife is from Jersey and has family there. Christi has been able to accomplish NOTHING.
The reason places like Virginia and Missouri are fighting the Health care law is because nearly half the residents are either uninsured or on Medicare or Medicaid. Why buy insurance when they can have the American taxpayer paying the bills.
Zip,
Medicare and social security has 100% participation because we are forced to pay in at the point of a gun.
Zip, the number of uninsured in Virginia and Missouri is less than 20% and on the closer side to 10%...
gogowhitesox
I ask politely, as I have asked El_Lobo to stop with the name calling and personal attacks. I read both your posts, consider your ideas and it annoys me to see El_Lobo calling someone..I don't know who...little buddy ..and for you to call someone Little Miss Loco.
I have to figure out which posters your creative appelations refer to...which post you are answering and as a reader, it annoys me..
Gibby...Gibby....
What are we going to do with you?
First of all, Reagan NEVER carried a balanced budget in the 8 years he was in the White House. He spent more than the government was taking in.....a great deal more and his tax cuts didn't do what he claimed they would do....
There was NO "trickle down!"
Surely even you, who sleeps over on the far, far right can see that....
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart...
Gibby said...
"Medicare and social security has 100% participation because we are forced to pay in at the point of a gun."
Hmmmmm.......I know of many people who don't pay into Social Security......are they breaking the law?
If people weren't forced to participate no one would pay in but EVERYONE would line up for benefits just like Medicaid. People have only had these programs for a few years but we have been walking for about 5 million years. It's only in the last hundred that the masses of people have moved forward.
Education, access to health care, laws, free markets enable people to work and make money. Without the above you have nothing.
Rea Virginia and Missouri I said the uninsured PLUS medicare and Medicaid equals 50% partication social welfare. The reason I include the uninsured is that most that get sick either end up on Medicaid or don't pay the hospital bills period. This is also a cost to society in that hospital claim the uninsured are a big reason for the astronomical hospital bills we all pay when we get sick.
You don't understand my point. Markets have generated 8% but that doesn't mean all participants generate 8%. People tend to follow heards and buy at the top and sell at major bottoms consistantly killing returns. Even pros make these mistakes. It is human nature. 99.99% of pros as well as individuals never come close to market returns. Do some research into individal investor psychology. The numbers of investors that have done 8% or better over the last 30 years you can put on the back of a postage stamp. Why do you think there is so much fraud and crime. People can't make it honestly.
Hmmmmm....I see my little buddy, the carpetbaggers, has his BP up today....
Hope it doesn't get up too high....I'm sure he's not taking anything for it!
I keep telling the little guy that "flattery will get him no where" but he contines with the flattery...
My hands are tied....
Cato, Heritage were started by people with large inherited wealth who thought they had more rights than the common American.
People have seen their private accounts decimated.
As the Sun pointed out most of NPRI's data is distorted. Such as the claim that unemployment benefits cause people to stay out of work longer. The person behind the study said it didn't apply when unemployment levels were so high.
Coal mine deaths, deaths on oil rigs, deaths and injuries in private sector colonoscopy clinics, a rape of the economy by Wall Street, the problem is we need more government regulations, not less. The low tax - low regulation Nevada, has not produced jobs and prosperity. Denmark, Australia etc are doing better than the USA with more government and more taxes.
El Lobo,
The correct answer is that the president is not responsible for the budgets. The president has no power over fiscal and budgetary matters. Read the U.S. constitution.
For example, a good portion of the deficits which accrued under the Reagan administration came from ever increasing expenditures from Federal welfare programs passed two decades before.
BY CONGRESS
Zip,
You're right. If we weren't forced to pay into those government programs no one would because they are junk with low returns and poor quality service. If we didn't have to pay into those systems the private sector would provide the service at a lower cost and most likely better quality.
The historical average is an average for everyone, I seriously doubt it is drawn to 8 percent because of a small sample of outliers (and as you seem to suggest a median value of 3 percent). For the lucky few the average is 10 to 12 percent. The fact is, fewer than 5 percent of individuals would do better with Social Security than with the stock market. You've got your stats backwards. You're probably conflating the fact that as people get older their retirement accounts become less and less risky so the return slows down.
Mred,
Yes the private sector has troubles and ups and downs. But you still can't beat the troubles caused by government. You don't have to look much further than Medicare and Medicaid to see what a low-quality service is provided by the government.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa548.pdf
For example, incompetence fueled by Medicare payments may kill as many as 100,000 a year: http://article.nationalreview.com/375830...
Finally, Medicare had no impact on mortality rates in its first 10 years http://www.nber.org/papers/w11609 even though the cost had doubled its high end estimates in just 4 years.
Patrick Gibbons, of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which is funded by Cato Institute and is dedicated to dismantling Roosevelt's New Deal, apparently believes that Reaganomics is not responsible for the astronomical growth in the national debt during the last three Republican administrations:
"Explain exactly how President Reagan increased the national debt"
Actually, I think you can ask David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981--1985). He says it came from Reagan enacting tax cuts and increasing govt spending. It doesn't take an economist to figure out where the deficit came from with that combo--but Stockman is not only an economist--but he is the guy who helped invent "Reaganomics" in the first place.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010...
Both he and Greenspan say you are nuts, Patrick.
AP
From Wikipedia:
"Reagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure.
In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.
In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency."
AP
Patrick... What a bunch of bull. These programs have only been in existence for a few years. How did Americans fair from the time frame 1780 until 1930. Did the private sector provide retirement and healthcare services for Americans in the first 170 years years of our existence. Was there even one business in the United States that provided health care and retirement for its employees in 1900. If they didn't do it then they sure as hell wouldn't do it now. Things are much more expensive these days. The numbers of self-sufficient affluent people you could count on one hand in 1900. Even the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson ended up flat broke because of real estate corrections in the early 1800s. I was a kid growing up when the Medicare program was put into effect. At that time the vast majority of elderly people had absolutely no access to medical care whatsoever because they have very little financial resources. The government partially privatized the retirement system in the 70s when things like Iras and 401(k)s came into existence. How many people even participate in these programs?
My wife and I have had private insurance. My wife has Medicare. We worked and owned businesses for over 70 years combined. Medicare is one of the highest rated healthcare delivery systems in the world. The vast majority of people with private insurance end up in bankruptcy court as soon as they get seriously ill. The vast majority of medical bankruptcies are people with private insurance. There are very few medical bankruptcies of people on Medicare..
John Bogle was a guy that I studied a great deal in my youth. He started the Vanguard mutual funds. He did more research into individual investor psychology than probably anyone that ever lived. I don't know if he's alive anymore he was sick for many years. He introduced the world to index funds. The work that he did in the 50s and 60s showed that there weren't any investors that were making money in stocks and bonds including himself. His work showed that in order to make money people have to buy when everybody selling and sell one everybody's buying. For all intense purposes he found that no one could do this including himself. His advice was to dollar cost average into broad-based index funds and not to switch in another those funds. What I found in the last 30 years is that people are switching in and out of index funds as much as they used to buy and sell stocks
There have been greater increases in life expectancy due to the entitlement programs that have been enacted around the world in the last hundred years than in the first 4 1/2 million years.
The myth of the Social Security system's financial shortfall
The trust fund is in far better shape than critics admit.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/08/...
AP, that is one of the most bogus stories on what social security is and how well it is (not) doing. It amounts to "social security is fine because we can just tax more to pay for it."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/07/3...
GGWS writes:
"American Patriot,
If we could only re-enact those Reagan policies which lead to a great expansion of personal wealth, deficit levels one half of today's Socialist regime...."
So I guess you know more than the actual Republican economist who invented "Reaganomics?" More than Alan Greenspan, who was appointed by Reagan?
Both of who say that extending the Bush (aka Reagan) tax cuts and "voodoo economics" will be disastrous for the nation's economy?
Must be great to know more than those who actually invented the system you are championing, and who long ago saw that it didn't work. By 1982, in fact.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/...
Who ever said that ignorance wasn't bliss?
You kind of remind me of someone buried in sand, ears full of sand, eyes covered by sand--only the mouth showing--and the mouth is howling that the person is not blind.
Well, keep on howling. Just because you can howl does not mean both Stockman and Greenspan are wrong.
Howl all you want, in fact. Just because you howl does not mean that howling changes history.
AP
Patrick. I've only lived in Nevada for about five years. Everybody seems to know you. If you think that Medicare and Social Security are junk run for office. Run for office on the platform that you're going to eliminate both programs. See how many votes you get. See how many financial backers will you get.
The only way to really know how popular these programs are is to try to get rid of them. You might be correct. You might have tens of millions of people standing behind you and voting for you. And then again you might not.
Zip, in case you weren't aware, the average American life span when Social Security was created was 61 years. You couldn't collect until age 65. Retirement wasn't something most people did not because we didn't have social security, but because people didn't live long enough because a lack of medical technology. Furthermore, the number of people age 65 or older living in retirement grew from the 1800s through the 1930s without the help of government. How do you think they managed? One part was in fact the help of their own families, the other was growing wealth that was saved and invested.
Zip, my position on social security will become more politically popular (and thus possible, politicians don't do what is economically correct, they do what is politically expedient) as my age group moves up the income ladder and takes power from the current generation -- hippies, warmongers and zealous dogooders that once fought against "the man" only to abuse power once they became "the man" :P
Btw, if political might made right, how do you explain slavery and Jim Crow?
Zip, the rise in life expectancy is due to the rise in human income (which is in turn used to buy more food, better homes, electricity, better medicines, clean water) which is due to economic growth from the emergence of global capitalism. Not the welfare state.
If social safety nets have nothing to do with it then why do countries that have much more extensive entitlements have much longer life expectancies. A woman born in Japan has a life expectancy of near 90. Japan was the first entitlement society. Similar in Europe.
It's not medicine and technology that increase life expectancy but ACCESS to it. In many countries life expectancy is what it was a million years ago because of violence and lack off access.
I wish your generation all the best. I mean that with all my heart. My son is probably part of your generation.
In my life I have seen GDP go from about 2 trillion to almost 15 trillion. You and my son have your work cut out for you. You will have to boost GDP to over 100 trillion to kick baby boomer butts.
PS There was no retirement before SS. People worked until they died or were to sick to work in which they died shortly after.
If you think coorporate generosity is going to take you into your golden years good luck. Finance as we know it today started with the Medici family in the 1400s. From 1400 until 1900 I can't think of ONE company that has provided comprehensive health and retirement benefits for workers any place in the world. If you know of one let me know.
Since Lady Gogo and gibby have once again hijacked a Sun forum with their 1000 word rants I will re-post this comment. But I don't expect either one of those paid hacks to respond to the facts of Reagan's rape of our SS system.
_____________
FAQ @ socialsecurity.gov (question #3)
Question:
"Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?"
Answer:
"The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve)."
_________________
Because Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy / trickle-down / voodoo economic scheme failed miserably to generate the revenues as advertised and theorized deficits began to balloon.
The cure? Punk the middle class by taxing their SS contributions. St Ronny's flawed economic policies created a sea of red ink and SS was his life preserver.
SS, 401 k's, and the stock Market:
Number of people receiving SS 52.6M
Average monthly benefit $1,153
SS+Medicare tax 6.2% and 1.45% for employer and employee.
Max Tax Earnings Limit $106,800
If your retirement earnings are calculated at $14,160 yearly, benefit would be $1180 monthly.
If your retirement earnings are calculated at $37,680 yearly, your benefit would be $3,140 monthly.
The admin. cost of operating SS is less than 1%.
If SS was privatized, the admin. could cost as much as 15%.
links: www.socialsecurity.gov/history/trustfund....
www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html,
The truth about social security privatization: www.ncpssm.org/news/archives/truth-about...,
Looting Social Security: www.thenation.com/article/looting-social....
401 k's:
At the end of 2007 the average 401k was worth $114,337, by the end of 2008 it was $86,513.
Typical US worker saw 401k lose 24.3% in 2008.
www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/...,
Retirement dreams disappear with 401 (K)s.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60min....
What the future of retirement looks like:
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/201....
Stock Market's real return-paltry:
http://articles.moneycentral.com/learn-h... to-invest/stock-markets-real-return-paltry.
The real return of the stock market since 1820 has been just 1.4% per year.
From Dec 31-1999 to Dec 31-2009, the DOW lost about 10%. Adjusted for inflation results in a negative 3.4%.
When bush/cheney took office on 1-20-2001 after stealing the general election in Florida with the help of 5 Supreme Court Justices, Social Security was sound until 2042. On 1-20-2009 when President Obama took office Social Security was only sound until 2037. There was a surplus every year under bush/cheney/ What happened? To get a general idea see "The Unlocked Box" at: www.slate.com/id/2093707.
The Criminal Enterprise of bush/cheney tried twice to privatize SS but failed. If they had succeeded the SS trust fund would have been reduced from 20-30% and benefits cut by that same amount.
At present there is $2,540,000,000,000 in the SS trust fund that will pay full benefits until 2037, and even if there is no increase in taxes the benefits thereafter would be 76% of the previous full amount. A slight increase in taxes as low as 1% would make SS sound for over 100 years. Presently it is sound for another 27 years, so why are the radical extremist so-called republicans in such a hurry to strip SS from Seniors, the disabled, and surviving widows? The reason why is that the Wall St.Ganksters are waiting behind the curtain.
Heritage, Cato, AEI,National Center for Policy Analysis, NPRI/NV, others, and the boot licking wingnut bloggers are the "Hatchet Men" for that segment of the business community that is totalitarian, corrupt, and incompetent.
Their Greed is the new "Evil Empire"!!!!
Lady Gogo,
I agree Americans have very short memories but the people aren't so denuded to forget so soon the epic, historic failure of Bush and his rubberstamp GOP Congress.
Americans are certainly intellectually challenged but the wreckage of GW Bush is not easily forgotten.
Your rosy right-wing fantasies are an illusion. Maybe in a hundred years they'll come true.
Today's date marks a major event in US political history.
Thirty-six years ago, on August 9, 1974, Richard Milhous Nixon resigned the Presidency of the United States of America, becoming the one and only Commander-in-Chief in US history to resign from office or face imminent impeachment.
Nixon was a crook, racist and destroyer of anyone who dared challenge him. But first and foremost Nixon was a died-in-the-wool Republican.
Some things never change.
Gibby said...
"The correct answer is that the president is not responsible for the budgets. The president has no power over fiscal and budgetary matters. Read the U.S. constitution."
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny!
Please, please, don't continue that type of talk...
I'm laughing so hard that my chest is starting to hurt....
"The president has no power over fiscal and budgetary matters." Ha! Ha! Ha!
Do you really believe that? And you claim to be a college graduate and have a major in history & government....
So what you're saying is that Reagan did not have the power of veto....do I have that right?
He simply had to accept what ever Congress passed and sent to him? Right?
I guess the same was true with Bush senior & Bush junior....do I have that right?
Well, if what you are saying is true, then why is Obama suddenly to blame for our current budget short-fall?
Gibby, I now understand why you taught only one semester in Virginia. You were literally run out of town on a rail....
Yes, the best way to do anything is to let the government run it.
Do all stupid people become liberals or do all liberals become stupid?
"Today's date marks a major event in US political history.
Thirty-six years ago, on August 9, 1974, Richard Milhous Nixon resigned the Presidency of the United States of America, becoming the one and only Commander-in-Chief in US history to resign from office or face imminent impeachment."
Thank you for the reminder....
I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard that "Tricky Dick" had resigned as president...
Also, today is the 65th anniversary of the American bombing of the Japanese city of Nagasaki.....
Six days later (August 15th) the Japanese surrendered, and on Sept. 2nd , they signed the official surrender terms on board the battleship, the USS Missouri....
World War II was over.....
Gogo...every person that has taken a mortgage had to sign that it would be paid back. I see the problem as millions of irresponsible Americans. All Fannie and Freddie did was provide home loans. Is it the banks fault or the people failing to make loan payments.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
(John Stuart Mill)
It's all the fault of the Democrats.....If you don't believe me just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago...
George "clueless" Bush and his party of corporate criminals did NOTHING to bring about our current demise......If you don't believe me, just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
Fannie and Freddie brought down the whole housing market, and 99% of the problem with the economy is Fannie & Freddie.......If you don't believe me, just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
Reagan, Bush senior and Bush junior all carried balanced budgets through out their time as president...they all left office with a budget surplus.......If you don't believe me, ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
The GOP will sweep the election this fall, regaining both Houses of Congress, and will take back the White House in 2012......If you don't believe me, just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
The American people are going to demand that Social Security and Medicare be done away.....both are going broke anyway.......If you don't believe me, just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
Harry Reid will be soundly defeated this Fall in his attempt to win re-election.....If you don't believe me, just ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago...
As you can see, the little carpetbagger from Chicago knows all......He knows who's going to win this Fall's World Series, next February's Super Bowl and the 2011 NBA Finals.......If you don't believe. ask the little carpetbagger from Chicago.
It's hard to call Medicare and Social Security ponzi schemes when it's obvious that the whole financial system is one. At least these programs help people that are not wealthy.
El Lobo,
When John Stuart Mill allegedly made the quote (and often it is reversed and attributed to someone else) liberals believed in actual liberty - that is, liberty from big intrusive government that took lots of money from your back pocket and told you how to live your life, how to run your company, what jobs you could or could not have, how much you could be paid, and who you could or could not do business with.
Thus, by liberals he means people who prefer limited government, capitalism and free markets. Which does not describe you. Conservatives of his time would have preferred not just a monarchy but a strong centralized government - which more closely describes you.
Zip,
Again sorry, but the average life span in Japan is 83 years. Not much more than in the U.S. Furthermore, the average life span of the average European (much whiter and far less diverse than the United State's gene pool btw) is just 2 years longer. The American is over 30 percent wealthier too. I bet if you subtract out America's murder rate and control for racial diversity (certain racial groups in America are more likely to contract certain types of diseases and because of a government monopoly on education are also more likely to have terrible educations which retards their ability to become wealthy to afford decent medical care) and our life span is virtually indistinguishable from the average European.
Access to health care doesn't make you live longer either. Medicare and Medicaid stink DESPITE giving people greater access to health care. Quality counts. Medicare and Medicaid just provide quantity.
Sorry vidi,
But the stock markets 140 year annual rate of return averages 6.68 percent http://www.moneychimp.com/features/marke...
private retirement accounts also do better in the long run than social security (which shrinks smaller and smaller every generation as people live longer, taxes are increased, economic growth slows, and the number of workers needed to keep the system afloat shrinks relative to the number of social security exploiters http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicati...
El lobo, you continue to demonstrate impressive amounts historical illiteracy. Read the constitution and TRY to learn the roles of Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive branch.
Patrick_R_Gibbons works for NPRI/NV as an educational policy analyst but we know what he really does. He is the propagandist "Hatchet Man" for that segment of the business community that is totalitarian, corrupt, and incompetent.
Any issue that is related to business, he will defend, even defend the indefensible.
He dispenses misinformation after misinformation in an attempt to brainwash you. He has no respect for you , he considers himself to be elite and intellectually superior to anyone else. He has mentioned that he has a Master's degree many, many times to try and impress everyone that he is "God's Gift to his Fellow Man."
Hooey, Pure Hooey!
Last throes,
Nixon is what the Las Vegas Sun editorial board would call "a moderate Republican" he was a Keynesian and was more than willing to use left-wing economic policy to save his proverbial butt.
Patrick_R_Gibbons, You Lie Constantly!
Then prove it. I got you eating crow right now.
Nixon on price controls: http://www.econreview.com/events/wagepri...
Do you want his actual quote on being a Keynesian too?
Or were you not happy with the link I provided that blew your fabricated story on the historical rate of return for the stock market?
Or maybe it was the study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that found private retirement accounts would benefit 95 percent of retirees better than Social Security could?
You must be bothered because your intellectual cowardice has you only responding about employers and associations, rather than substantive facts about the issues at hand. And if we're on the subject about who we really are, why do you write with a pseudonym and accuse people of lying in the same post?
I'd wager money you work for some special interest - probably government interest. But I don't attack on that, I attack your baseless, factless statements.
PRG and nonodirtyshorts are the lowest of the low by posting misinformation constantly in an attempt to brainwash their fellow Americans.
All they care about is the party, the party, the party, and not "We the People."
Every day they are on the Sun letter threads they make the maximum effort to assinate the truth.
They hate the truth because they know the truth will destroy their miserable failure demagogues, which will put them out of a job
Those "Things" have no Shame!
Gibby said...
"Access to health care doesn't make you live longer either. Medicare and Medicaid stink DESPITE giving people greater access to health care. Quality counts. Medicare and Medicaid just provide quantity."
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Where in the world do you come up with your crap?
Millions of American are alive today because of the availability of both Medicare & Medicaid. The same is true wuth Social Security...
Americans are living longer because of the availability of health care and the fact that we have improved our health care delivery system.
People who use to die of cancer and many other maladies have been able to dodge the bullet and live longer.
Medical science & treatment has greatly improved the quality of health care and has resulted in people living longer....
The more you talk, the more foolish you appear to be...
I have great difficulty believing that you actually get paid to post the "brain dead crap" that you do....
VidiVeritas and El_Lobo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYt...
GGWS writes:
"Liberals, I'm going to tell you why you're going to lose. ARROGANCE!"
Actually, and I hate to remind you of this, but you always seem to be reminded of the obvious--your own party got thrown out of power a little under two years ago, after 8 years in office.
The majority of Americans elected a Democratic president/
The majority of Americans elected Democratic majorities to both houses of Congress.
The majority of Nevadans elected Harry Reid.
(I should mention that Nevadans also elected the Republican John Ensign, but I think that even you will agree with me that that particular Republican senator has been a disaster--both nationally and locally).
Your party got thrown out of office primarily because of the implosion of the national economy.
It also got thrown out of office for getting us ensnared in two foreign wars, one of which is the longest in American history.
It also got thrown out for doing diddly squat about soaring health care insurance costs, which we all pay.
It also got thrown out for doing nothing about illegal immigration.
It also got thrown out for doubling the national debt.
It also got thrown out for having America join a sordid list of nations that torture other people.
But I should also add that it also got thrown out of office for sheer arrogance and hubris.
So I have to laugh when you talk about arrogance.
Cause you're the loudest and most arrogant person on these forums.
In any case, you got thrown out. And no matter how much kicking and screaming and insulting and denying you want to do--that's not going to change that fact.
Ain't democracy great?
AP
Patrick Gibbons writes:
"El lobo, you continue to demonstrate impressive amounts historical illiteracy. Read the constitution and TRY to learn the roles of Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive branch."
Another arrogant poster if there ever was one.
Hmmmm. Patrick Gibbons and the Nevada Research Institute continue to push for the roll back of Roosevelt's New Deal. Daily.
Patrick still can't even admit that American tobacco corporations deliberately kill people around the world--all for profit.
Can't say it, can't admit it. Thinks that tobacco companies are A-OK because the free market and corporations, unhindered by a "nasty" government, will bring us the best of all possible world.
It's a delusion Patrick.
And you keep trying to sell that delusion to us each and every day.
A 12-year old knows that tobacco companies kill for profit.
But not you.
And you say that El Lobo demonstrates "impressive amounts historical illiteracy?"
Who are you trying to kid?
So much for the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
AP
We Americans will NEVER let the greedy
republican thieves steal our Social Security or
Medicare.
REPUBLICAN GREED has done enough damage to our
country.
SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, VOTE DEMOCRATIC.
Patrick...The Fed example is hypothetical. Look at what people have ACTUALLY made investing in private retirement accounts like IRAs, Keoghs and 401Ks. Some have been around for over 30 years. How many can retire off of their IRA. Top level coorporate execs and that is about it.
For the Fed to say Americans would do better investing their SS money than the govt. is a real stretch. They would probably blow the money on cars, guns, big screen tvs, drugs and gambling. The same crap Americans have always blown money on.
I have done business with Charles Schwab since the advent of the company. The average account is about $16k... WOW. The number is about 10 years old. It might have changed but not by much. They are the largest discounter in the US.
The numbers of Americans that save, invest and make a fortune are miniscule and always have been.
High paying jobs and real estate appreciation have put people on easy street. Not retirement accounts.
Show me something that shows the average $50k family has made millions with self directed retirement accounts. Hell, find me one family.
Plus maxing out these deferred accounts gives an investor far more money to play with then the average SS contribution. A 50k familiy can put around 20K into an IRA and deferred comp if husband and wife work. This is far more than the SS deduction for both. Even with these huge contributions most families have less than $100K in all these accounts. About enough cash for a few days of flu treatments at UMC.
AP,
You still won't admit the government profits more from tobacco than the tobacco companies.
Zip,
The reality is that Social Security devours 12 percent of your income annually and "invests it" in a bond that returns very little in the long run relative to the private markets. Devouring that much income not only leaves us with fewer disposable dollars to buy the things we need or want, it leaves us with fewer dollars to save and invest.
GogoWhitesox and Patrick Gibbons are two people with way too much time on their hands and are both in need of a hot soapy enema.
They are both so full of smelly, foul fecal matter that this self medicating anal canal remedy is the only way forward for both of them.
One request though guys, can you get yer butt's up to Yucca mountain for the event? Your waste is nuclear in content and we need to clear the valley of the marginally intelligent ideologues like yourselves who allow right wing heartlessness and personal selfishness to fester and cloud your judgment.
We will also be able to see if nuclear waste (your opinions and self serving twisting of facts)can be contained in Yucca. It is my guess you will show us that verbal radiation cannot be contained anywhere.
Boy will it smell better in town here for the day or two yer both gone!
A couple of question for the both of you:
Who do you like?
Do you have any friends left?
PS. Don't bother with the 3 million links you'll try to use to justify your anti human stances. I have more sense in my fingernails than you two do in four of your lifetimes. I am immune to your nonsense.
You are the kids who cried wolf about a thousand times too many.
Patrick_R_Gibbons says: "The reality is that Social Security devours 12 percent of your income annually and 'invests it' in a bond that returns very little in the long run..."
You just explained Social Security only pertaining to money. This was not why it was created.
Social Security was created as a way for people to take care of people. It's not a scam. It's not a Ponzi Scheme. It's not a racket. It's not a Wall Street venture. It's not insurance. None of those things. It's a Government program set up that has proved very successful.
It was simply meant as a way for people to take care of people, the young paying in to help people out in their golden years. It is still, to this day, a good idea. And people look forward to it, not looking at it as a "free handout," but as something they invested in.
But when Republicans look at it, they only see money. They want to get their grubby mitts on it. They make fun of it. Call it a bad idea. They find fault with it. Not because of any of those reasons, but only because they hate it when people take care of people. They would love to snow the American people about something so they can get their hands on it.
I guarantee if President Bush got his hands on Social Security like he wanted (he backed off), it would, because of the economic meldown of 2007-2008, be simply catastrophic. That money would have been gambled away. Gone. And people would be left starving and the economy would have nose dived worse than it did.
The lesson learned? REPUBLICANS NEED TO KEEP THEIR STUPID HANDS OFF OF THIS PROGRAM! Because they come up with ideas that are only self serving to them...and to the very rich. They could care less about the average American.
They only want three things: Money, power and glory.
And they will do anything to get it.
And if Social Security is gutted by them, they could care less.
ColinFromLasVegas and Angry Patriot should win the blog versions of a Pulitzer prize for blog journalism.
I am really enjoying their writings. God Bless everyone who writes here, with a special Blessing for CFLV and AP.
Thanks, JeffFromVegas.
You ain't no slouch yerself.
I just don't like the total hypocrisy and the hidden agendas we see all the time in a lot of these blog posts.
It's all so transparent and needs to be called out for what it is: That which emits from the northbound end of a southbound horse.
I really, really do hope this Tea Party phenomenom just totally...disappears. Sort of like Senator McCarthy's Red Scare of the 1950s.
One morning we wake up and...POOOF! Gone. People start acting normal again.
But it can't happen.
In politics nowadays, crazy is the norm. It's cool to be crazy. And anyone can participate. Don't even have to be true.
Just look at all the stuff that is floated out there that's false about Social Security. And it keeps on coming. Throw it on the wall and see if it sticks.
This is the public debate we need to have at this point:
Do we want the government to take care of all our needs?
-- or --
Do we want to take care of ourselves?
Do we want Liberty and the personal reesponsibility that goes with it?
-- or --
Do we want government dependency and the government dictates that go with it?
We're at a crossroads. Look at the big picture. We are about to complete a fundamental transformation from Liberty to Socialism. The People will make the choice in November.
I wonder if I am the only one commenting here that receives Social Security and Medicare. I had to jump through documentation hoops for over a year to prove eligibility, even though I was born here and am a Gold Star daughter.
Because I was mislead (Sorry....they lied!) about my eligibility by the Social Security Administration (even though I was employed all of my working life) I was not approved until I was sixty-seven. Their delay also caused me to have to pay a permanent monthly penalty. I'd probably still be in the application black hole if it had not been for one young man at the Social Security office that actually cared.
Almost three hundred dollars per month is deducted from my Social Security check for my Medicare coverage. My Social Security is also taxed. Medicare does not cover some medications that I need because they are not on the Part D formulary. I pay for these out of pocket. There's not anything left of my Social Security check for anything except pure necessities.
The doctor whom I've been seeing for almost six years walked away from her practice without notice. I had to pay $225 cash-up-front at Urgent Care for a nurse practitioner to write thirty day refills for my medications.
It seems like I contacted every relevant agency and politician in Nevada to find a new doctor that would accept a Medicare patient. For three weeks I called and E-mailed doctors only to find that they've become boutique practices or do not accept new Medicare patients.
This is no walk in the park, nor is it a "free lunch" like so many younger people think. It's a veritable mine field because while the hospital that you may be taken to accepts Medicare, the doctors, anesthetist or anyone who doesn't work directly for the hospital is going to send you a separate bill and they most likely do not accept Medicare.
None of the problems that I have with Social Security and Medicare have anything to do with Health Care Reform. These were all put in place by the previous administration.
I've finally found wonderful primary health care at Sahara Family Practice....about the only bright light in my life at the moment.