1 Cowboy poets hardest hit.

2 Alright. Where's my fukkin' kitten? How dare you drop the doom dumpling without a mitigating fuzzy critter? Huh? Huh?

3 Soylent Green is people!

4 My new retirement plan: moonshine. It worked for my ancestors, it'll work for me. I need to locate some large septic tanks and some diesel tractor radiators.

5 When the painful readjustment comes, Hilary is going to rue all of those pictures with the Reset button.

6 Well, this is cool, defund the military and the various psuedo-military arms of the fed. If the fed is going to be the next evil empire, well, we don't want them well armed. But remember, business failed us, government is the answer.

7 If there are cuts, its listener will lose NPR.

8 Charlie Gibson? Uh...never heard of him.

9 maddogg - I think you can get an ethanol kickback from USDA to get going.  I started small, a crockpot and tubing thru an ice chest.  Tiss passable.

10 Oh. Great.

11 My new never gonna get a job again, it looks like retirement plan: Buy/read/use the complete Foxfire series of books; live in the woods; start a quasi-religious cult where the members provide for all my needs.

And I do mean all, IYKWIMAITYD.

12 The kitten always reminds me of an old hillbilly story involving a cat, a knothole in the cabin wall, and a drunk hillbilly. But I won't elaborate on that at this time.

13 The only thing new here is just how much ahead of schedule the U.S. is at reaching collapse. Why, it's "unexpected." Yay, us! The new battle cry of the Republic: Never have so many been so screwed so quickly and so deeply.

14 We have:
Health insurance
Life insurance
Car insurance
House insurance
Renters Insurance

Have you seen the food shelves in Japan?
Stock up extra food for a rainy day folks, its like money in the bank.

15 We can put all the debt on a boat out to sea...and then sink it. Easy peasy...lemon squeezy. They showed me how to do this in school.

16 The thing about the "cut everything else first!" crowd is that they have a point- I don't know if you refuse to see it, dismiss it, or just disagree with it, but they've got a point.

The full argument goes like this (or, would if I were making it):
I know you have to cut my government cheese.  However, I'd like it cut as little as possible, thankyouverymuch.  So let's cut everything else first, and see where that leaves us as far as required cuts to my government cheese.

I think what they fail to see is that every constituency can make this same argument- Farmers, the Military, everybody.  Someone has to get cut first, and whoever it is will complain that it's not fair.

I don't know if cutting Entitlements first is the answer.  Mathematically, I'm sure it is.  However, in the world of retail politics, it looks like political suicide unless there have been substantial, across the board cuts first.

17 "mandatory federal spending now outstrips federal revenues"

Most foreboding item I've seen all month and it has been a scary month.

18

Uh today a great national tragedy occured. Our national debt, while being transported to China aboard a freighter, was inexplicably sunk by a rogue wave. America will miss its debt but life will go on. Now excuse me while I get to the links.

19 Posted by: dogfish at March 16, 2011 09:53 AM (NuPNl)

Indeed.  We are truly and deeply boned.  I'm wondering if the correct answer, at this point, is just to let it all collapse and try to rebuild from the ashes.

Of course, I've been wondering that for a while, but it looks like a more viable solution virtually every day.

20

Posted by: Jean at March 16, 2011 09:49 AM (WkuV6)

Yeah. I've made 'shine before, on a small scale, maybe a couple of gallons. The old time Ace Hardware man was most helpful. Scaling up to 500 gallons is a big step. Tanks that size are harder to locate, transport, and fire at the correct temperature. But what the hell, whiskey is every bit as good as gold in The Wasteland. Properly made and aged, it's as good as bonded whiskey. When I take some to my semi annual trip to the Texas-Texas Tech game, a line forms up within a couple of minutes. All them Texicans want to taste some gennuuine Arkansas Moonshine.

21 With 40% of the nations income coming from entitlements, man it does not look good.

Looks like we are guaranteed to have to go through a currency crisis. Gonna talk to my boss who has a small hobby farm and pledge my weapons, ammo, labor, and life to defend his property and herd in return for food.

He's an old guy, he's gonna need people to stand watch, and shooters to defend against the zombie horde.

22 In the Immortal words of Bender "Ask not for who the bone, bones, for it bones for thee!"

23 This is why people who insist on "other cuts first!" are completely missing the scope of the problem.

We are not missing the scope of the problem, we're just pointing out that if you insist on cut-entitlements-first you will get nothing, and achieve nothing beyond reelecting the Party of the Free Lunch, and ensuring that the collapse ending is the one we get.

24 So what the Oldsters are telling us is that they want the government reduced until it's 85% a transfer-payment clearing house?

25 our government now is mainly in the business of spending money on senior citizens

Isn't Medicaid, the program for the poor, by far the biggest problem?  I'm not dismissing SS and Medicare, but we need to be clear as to who is getting the money.  Ocare will make the problem much worse, of course.

26 I got time for nine holes before the game starts. Love March! Nuthin' to worry about but golf and hoops!

27 Soylent Gray is kittehs!  And delicious.

28 (My prediction: given the spinelessness of our political class, the "how" is going to take the form of much higher taxes, dollar inflation, and a decaying national infrastructure and military.)

You didn't need to add a cute-kitty picture. That is one.

Here's a less ridiculous prediction: hyperinflation, Hitler, Hitler II: This Time It's Personal, SuperHitler, darkness, A Canticle for Bin Laden, invasion by the Hitler Planet, giant asteroid, A Canticle for Space Hitler, sun blows up.

29 13 The only thing new here is just how much ahead of schedule the U.S. is at reaching collapse. [...]

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 16, 2011 09:51 AM (swuwV)

I'm wondering if there is some kind of progression here we could chart. It almost seems to accelerate as we go along. My point: someone posited on one of these doom threads a few days ago that we had maybe 5-10 years to set things right or, well, DOOM!

It is starting to look like that endpoint is closer and closer all the time. If we have 5-10 years, we can take a year or so to cut all the "other stuff," like extra-constitutional departments and agencies, federal funding for assorted bullshit, etc.

If that endpoint isn't 5-10 years away, we may need to send the legislative equivalent of a suicide squad to congress, pass some deeply unpopular laws, get voted out at the next election, and hope we saved the republic in the process.

Me, I'm putting away food and miscellaneous supplies. Need to get more ammo, too. And the rest of those Foxfire books.

30 Posted by: nickless at March 16, 2011 09:56 AM (MMC8r)

I'm sure they don't look at it that way, but yes.

And part of the problem is that they were, indeed, "promised" their benefits.  Now, they should have thought, "A Government Promise and fifty cents will buy you a cup of coffee" (back in the day, remember) and told the govt. to get stuffed.  But they didn't (or, not enough of them did) and so we've got what we've got.

If you want them on your side (and you should) you have to try to see things from their perspective, show honor to that viewpoint, and find some way forward.

Or, for some (who refuse to accept even one penny of reduced benefits- and there are some of those even on this blog) you turn around and say, "Okay, what's your plan then?  We've shown that even completely eliminating all discretionary spending will not cut enough out of our budget.  Do you think we shouldn't spend anything on roads and other infrastructure?  How about the military?  What is your plan?"

31 maddogg - my "kin" from up in Kentucky make it for medicinal purposes only - but it's damn good medicine.  I have only experimented; but I hope it doesn't become an important life skill.

32 As Jeffrey Anderson points out in the linked article, this state of affairs came about nearly 50 years before many in the government thought it would.

Our oldster / slacker classes are world-class overachievers, in other words.

And many in the government are blithering, innumerate idjits.

33 I'm pretty sure I know what the Dem solution will be -- raise SS and Medicare taxes by a couple more %, eliminate the caps on taxable income, and start means testing.
 
The $70 billion/yr in improper Medicare/caid payments reported yesterday (read as fraud) will never get fixed, though that was included in the CBO analysis justifying OBankruptCare.

34 However, in the world of retail politics, it looks like political suicide unless there have been substantial, across the board cuts first. Look, I'm all in favor of abolishing federal money to the cowboy poets, NPR, PBS, and other suckers of the government teat. But we don't have the damned time to piss around with those battles. The house is burning down around our ears and we're farting around with this shit? A commenter a while back had a wise comment about what's "politically possible": we can pass a law today saying that the sun won't come up tomorrow, but it's going to come up just the same. We can all vote that being poor is illegal, but that won't make poor people disappear on the day after the law is passed.

35 Medicare is the largest problem. Thats the Middle Class entitlement that will end us. 

I have ideas to fix SS (Means test, Raise Retirement age) and Medicaid (End Medicaid)

I got nothin for Medicare. Besides a total overhaul and a way to create an insurance market for old people, which economically doesn't fucking work.

36 Paging Kratos...Kratos....Kratos to the front desk please.

37 This is why people who insist on "other cuts first!" are completely missing the scope of the problem.

I disagree. In order to get real cuts, we have to sell them to the public.

Start with things they don't care much about and then show it isn't enough.

Most candidates running *today* on significant cuts to SS is not going to get elected.

Presume we cut discretionary spending significantly in 2012 and still have a trillion dollar deficit and I think it starts to become easier to sell entitlement reform to the electorate...

38 When I take some to my semi annual trip to the Texas-Texas Tech game, a line forms up within a couple of minutes. All them Texicans want to taste some gennuuine Arkansas Moonshine.

Posted by: maddogg at March 16, 2011 09:55 AM (OlN4e)

Ohh, maybe next year you can go to an Ohio State game.  I love moonshine/whiskey.  My West Virginian in-laws are awesome at making that stuff.  Nothing better than going mud running, then drinking 'poor man's whiskey', shooting the shit, and relaxing in front of a bon fire.

They are also great at making 'Apple pie' (like on Justified) and 'pumpkin pie' shine.

39 I got nothin for Medicare. Besides a total overhaul and a way to create an insurance market for old people, which economically doesn't fucking work.

Posted by: Zakn at March 16, 2011 10:02 AM (zyaZ1)

Make me Surgeon General. 

40 It's....It's...FULL OF IOUS!!!!!1111!!!!

41

My dad retired last year. In the next couple of years, my mom will retire. Neither of them are disabled or in any way unable to work. In fact, my dad volunteers about 20-30 hours per week... for fun. He is physically and mentally capable of continuing to work. Even though they have saved quite a bit (through living frugally and responsibly), they still take money from the government.

I have to question whether it is morally right to retire when you still have the ability to add economic value. If you're taking money from the government in the form of SS or Medicare but you still have the ability to provide for yourself, then you're not really different, philosophically, from someone who is in their 20Â’s and refuses to work. I know that sounds hard or heartless, but just because the system is explicitly set up to encourage that sort of behavior, doesnÂ’t mean its right.

Science and medicine have given humanity a wonderful gift of longer and healthier lives. As a society, we donÂ’t tend to value the experience and wisdom of the older generations. Yet, we are given the opportunity to learn from these folks instead of shuffling them off to oblivion.

  I'm completely cool with the idea of taking care of those who can't take care of themselves—regardless of their age, but donÂ’t make me slave away just so you can play bridge or golf. ItÂ’s not my fault you guys didnÂ’t have enough kids or fix the system when you had the opportunity.

42 Isn't Medicaid, the program for the poor, by far the biggest problem? Actually, at the federal level, it's Medicare. That's a fully-federal program. The feds pay a part of Medicaid, but most of the cost is borne by the states (which is why Obamacare achieves its "savings" by shunting a lot of people onto Medicaid -- they basically just transfer the costs onto the states). Both Medicare and Medicaid are dollar-gobbling monsters, though, which is why many states are telling the Feds to sit'n'spin on Obamacare. They can't afford Medicaid now; Obamacare would simply crush them.

43 28
Here's a less ridiculous prediction: ... sun blows up.
Posted by: oblig. at March 16, 2011 10:00 AM (xvZW9)

I don't need to blow up ... I'm having too much fun now bitch-slapping y'all with my prominences.

44 Start with things they don't care much about and then show it isn't enough. What about this unfolding disaster makes you think we have the time to dick around with this stuff?

45

We can't even strip money away from NPR.

Spending millions/billions on NPR is a luxury - and the idiots in our senate can't even cut an un-necessary luxury.

 

46 Zakn - convert the VA hospitals to public (Medicare) use.  If you don't have other coverage; then you get to stand in line

47 Hey, hold my beer.  Watch this!

48 I want to say thank you to the NRA. The Pres. wanted to sit down and compromise regarding gun control. The NRA refused. Bravo you don't sit down with these kind of people, Marxist. Obama beliefs have been ingrained in him since he was a child, you are not going to change him or the people around him. Let's start calling him what he is, he knows what he is. Why are so many afraid or in disbelief to his views and calling him what he is? When you compromise with them you lost. Obama is incompetent but very well trained and clever.

49

If everything is labeled a "drop in the bucket" - then we can't touch any of the drops.

It's time to start with all of the "drops in a bucket".

 

 

50 ach-I, Captain, I've got the money printing presses running at 110%, and they can't take much more! (And put on a focking shirt, will ye)

51 Reagan was correct. It wasn't the New Deal that would be the end of us, it was The Great Society.


The poor guy used to say he voted for FDR 4 times, it was the Great Society that was the problem.

52

Why doesn't the Feds just quit collecting revenues? What's the point? torture?

53 Posted by: Monty at March 16, 2011 10:02 AM (4Pleu)

Monty, do you want to save the house, or the people in it?

Here's the thing- when you're done cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, you're still going to have a two party system: the party of boring responsibility, and the party of swag.  And people will be even more inclined to vote in the party of swag if a) you've just taken away their swag, and b) it now looks like there might be money for swag.

So, you'd temporarily save the house, but the people inside would all still die from smoke inhalation.

On the other hand, if you go about it slowly, some of the people inside get burned- some of them badly, and you probably don't save the house.  But, with some luck and savvy, everyone makes it out alive.

To do that, you have to enlist the help of the Boomers.  You have to convince them that it is in their best interests (because we've gone for at least 2 generations now where #1 was more important even than #1's children) to make those cuts.  They won't see that (either because they can't, or because the refuse) until you've cut everything down to the point where it only barely can function at its most core goals.

In position 1- you fix (repeal) SS, MCare and MCaid, only to have them rematerialize in just a couple of years as those Boomers overwhelming flock to the D Banner of Swag.

In position 2 - more people get hurt, but you have the possibility of actually enacting some of those fundamental changes (or even a repeal) of those programs that are necessary to let us become fiscally solvent again- and people realize that the Republicans were the ones who acted responsibly and so don't (in as great numbers) flock to the Ds.

54 "we can pass a law today saying that the sun won't come up tomorrow, but it's going to come up just the same. We can all vote that being poor is illegal, but that won't make poor people disappear on the day after the law is passed." Right. Just like we can have laws that say that entitlements spending is *mandatory*. When we lose access to our sources of credit, "mandatory" will have lost its meaning. So long as we continue to vote for politicians willing to Chip Diller in the face of all this, there is no way through this that doesn't first burn everything to ashes.

55 Monty (and others) and you are missing our point entirely as well. They have decreased benefits and increased SS taxes 3 times before to fix this. Each time they increased spending even more than they saved. The worse thing you could do right now is do that same thing again.

And to show you how they still have no credibility they can't even cut 60 billion out of a budget of 3.8 trillion even as we speak! land Deal says we can only cut 4 billion.

But yes, I will agree to cut SS spending.

Immediately cut ALL of the money going out to SSDI. Currently it is about 110 billion a year and the best guess is 99% fraud. Fraud meaning what it was not designed to be for.

But since that will never happen, and since we will not fix the ability of the Peggy Joesephs of the country to vote we will continue to elect communists.

So go ahead and admit it, we are boned no matter what happens. So quit beating up on the old geezers who actually paid, and are STILL paying, taxes. It is the grass hoppers who are bankrupting the country, not the old farts.

56

This is all our fault for not giving, sacrificing, caring enough.

57 53

Why doesn't the Feds just quit collecting revenues? What's the point? torture?

Posted by: torabora at March 16, 2011 10:09 AM (PMoHl)

We are twenty years behind in the development of the skittle-shitting unicorn. Be patient - and take you iodine.

58 Monty: how far out do you think total collapse is? One year? Two? 5-10?

An estimate might focus the conversation handily.

59 What will O'bama do about it ?  He thinks he's the Oscar Meyer Weiner and everybody's in love with him , The Truth - He is a Weiner , long and skinny , Thin skinned , no different than the others he's packaged with  and to sum up , he's a mixed-up bunch of meat surrounded by white bread....

60

Posted by: GGinNC at March 16, 2011 10:06 AM (x7byD)

Seriously...we NEED folks to retire en mass so that millions of young people can get jobs, raise families, buy houses and cars, and pay taxes. The longer old farts keep working the harder it will be on all of us.

61 I have to disagree with a portion of this analysis.

The government has stated explicitly how it intends to deal with this problem - maybe you were offline that day?

Here's the plan: The government will decide who lives and dies and they'll be happy to give pain pills to the people they deem need to die.

Healthy people will be forced by law to buy insurance that has been made completely unaffordable by the government or pay the government a fine.

There is no lack of political will to fix the problem - it's just that their solutions are an affront to all humanity.

62 What about this unfolding disaster makes you think we have the time to dick around with this stuff?

If we don't, then we are well and truly boned, so make your personal plans for the Obamaclypse.  I'm hoping that whichever warlord controls my area will need and appreciate my usefulness as a conscienceless lackey.

Personally, I think we have two election cycles to work with, but the case has to be made everyday, by every politician, and it needs to start yesterday.  Which means were boned.

The math doesn't lie.

63 Posted by: torabora at March 16, 2011 10:13 AM (PMoHl)

That's the exact thinking that brought on SS in the first place.  Just sayin'.

64 "It is the grass hoppers who are bankrupting the country, not the old farts."

Nope, it's the old farts.  If they had had more grasshoppers we wouldn't be in this position.

65 53
Why doesn't the Feds just quit collecting revenues? What's the point? torture?
Posted by: torabora at March 16, 2011 10:09 AM (PMoHl)

Ooo! Ooo! And let's stop having elections, too!

'Cause it's a foregone conclusion that Preznint Splutnik has it in the bag. And the SAT requirements for the Electoral College are just too damn strict.

66

Or, for some (who refuse to accept even one penny of reduced benefits- and there are some of those even on this blog) you turn around and say, "Okay, what's your plan then?

AllenG is seriously thinking about this. I'll try to return the seriousness. (My short answer is I don't know.)

The government has to convince people to surrender their benefits, and this could be done through buyouts. If people are having a hard time getting by on Social Security, then they'll be inclined to think ill of the program, and they might take $50,000 cash-money right now to get out of the program, foregoing any future benefits. Of course, these people will eventually regret their decision, correctly concluding too late that they've been taken as suckers by their own government.

Another solution would be to somehow privatize people's benefits in a government-sponsored corporation, though I can't begin to envision how this would work.

67 Simple... just hand things to the states. Problem solved.

68 What about this unfolding disaster makes you think we have the time to dick around with this stuff?

Posted by: Monty at March 16, 2011 10:07 AM (4Pleu)

Political reality. A push for major entitlement reform in 2011/12 will likely give us the re-election of Barack Obama, Harry Reid continuing as Senate majority leader, and fewer seats in the House.

Unfortunately we *have* to spend the next few years cutting a few hundred billion of discretionary spending first.

If we are fighting on CPB/NPR, and we may well lose that fight, we can't take on SS.

The polls show much of the electorate believes we can balance the budget while merely trimming the edges of federal spending. Those voters will control how much can be done.

That being said, the Republicans need to show *much* more fight. We have to be talking about closing cabinet level positions next year - like HUD.

69 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 10:15 AM (TpXEI)

And this (the exchange, not the specific comment) is the problem.  Instead of blaming Government, we get busy blaming each other.

I'll stipulate that this is not the "fault" of my parents' generation.  Please do me the favor of stipulating the reciprocal.  The fault lies entirely on the Government.  We own some of the blame for electing them, but they also lied through their teeth every time they told us they were "fixing" these programs or that everything was alright.

Now, blame having been squarely fixed: Who Cares?  What good has fixing the blame done?  Did knowing who's at fault miraculously fix the problem?  No?  Weird...  So how about we talk about ways to get the problem fixed- realistic ways that consider we live in a land of retail politics and have to be able to sell the solution- we can't just implement it by fiat.

70

ok morons I'll need the schematics for a still that maddog was speaking of.

also I'll need a moderate weather place by a stream -river that is legal to squat on .do squatters stil have rights?

71 Posted by: FireHorse at March 16, 2011 10:17 AM (k3RPu)

A buyout might work... but, you're right, it would be difficult to implement- setting a just amount for the buy-out and having SS come up with that liquid capital (without just printing the money) would be difficult, at best.

As for privatizing SS- don't bet on it.  When people hear that, they think Stock Market, and the Dems just love to talk about how unstable the stock market is.  Heck, even GWB's suggestion of allowing people the option of investing a portion of the SS into private accounts was met with vitriol like nobody's business.

72 Ok, I request puppy photos with doom. I fucking hate cats. Showing me kittens to make me feel better is like showing me little baby vampire bats.

I hate cats and would drown all of them in a shallow pond if I could. I'm allergic and can't breathe when I'm near them. My high school gf's cat scratched my cornea. They are evil, evil creatures.

Showing me pictures of these devils when they are still babies and haven't fully matured into their full demonic powers ... just makes me want to kill them now when they are weak and vulnerable. If I try and crush a real, adult cat I'll collapse into a wheezing fit 5 minutes into the chase ... and then the evil creature will saunter onto my wheezing, gasping chest ... and scratch out my eyes.

More puppies! Less evil, cat, devil-creatures!

73 ok morons I'll need the schematics for a still that maddog was speaking of.

I know look like a shill for Lindsey Books, but I really enjoy his selection of old-tech how-to's.

Secrets of Building an Alcohol Producing Still

74 Monty: how far out do you think total collapse is? One year? Two? 5-10? Shit, if I knew that with any certainty, I'd be a millionaire by now. I'd be shorting the market like a motherfucker. Much depends on how much Uncle Sugar is willing to debase the currency (inflation), and how much of this the taxpayers will tolerate. We withstood quite a lot back in the 1970's, but we carried a hell of a lot less structural debt back then. I'm guessing -- and a guess is all it is -- that somewhere in the 5-10 year range is the event horizon. We cannot simply go on the way we are, that much is obvious; it is equally obvious that the Democrats will fight every real reform. Thus, that takes us to at least 2012 before anything will be done. Given that it would require a near supermajority in all three branches for the GOP to achieve anything significant, and given that this is highly unlikely to happen, we will face our Waterloo something around 2016-2020. But things happen. Things come out of the blue. Look at what happened in Japan -- it went from being a financial backwater to being a glaring front-page news story with global implications for decades to come. All in the course of a few minutes. All it would take to accelerate the collapse in the US is a major natural or man-made disaster, a terrorist attack, or even a couple years of really bad weather. We have no margin left, no breakdown-lane, no padding, no cushion. But nations can exist in extremis for a long time -- a surprisingly long time. Hell, we may crutch this poor broke republic clear into the 2030's before reality asserts itself. (Right around the time I become eligible to "retire". Yay! Fighting off zombies and wasteland bikers by day, eating rat-meat around a campfire by night.) But hey, the optimists can always hope that the aliens will land and give us the secret to wealth and eternal life. It beats having to actually save our money and pay our bills.

75 Obama continues to promise even prettier unicorns, with the giddy belief that he can blame all late deliveries on Republican cutbacks.  But whether his manufactured crisis is by design or blind political ambition, the results seem the same.

He will bring us green energy and trains, by skyrocketing the price of energy.

He will give us single payer free health care for all, by destroying the current system with Obamacare.

He will bring us a new currency and new world order, by destroying the capitalists and the dollar.

He will redistribute wealth to the world, by taxing carbon (except for from his friends that get exemptions).

He will shut down oil, and send deep water rigs to less safe operators in Brazil and elsewhere.

He will shut down coal, while China builds coal plants like crazy.

Yet our compliant media will support him in every action ... ALL cutbacks are blamed on immoral Republicans and are evil.  As Pelosi says, this is not about the money , it is the right thing to do.

Things have to get bad enough that voters will blame overspending, and not vote in more communists to fix it with unicorn promises ... but by then it might be too late, if it isn't already.

76 If, as has been written here, Medicare and Medicaid are bigger money eaters than SS, maybe we should stop worrying about SS and concentrate on the larger problems.

This has the political benefit of being able to be sold as "We're looking out for the old folks," by (a) preserving their SS (until MC/MA are fixed, a point we'd just keep quiet) and (2) "We're 'fixing' MC/MA because we care.

Under that cover we radically trim back MC/MA to only pay out for poor old folks, and with drastically reduced end-of-life payments. Then, we go after SS

77 "The fault lies entirely on the Government. We own some of the blame for electing them, but they also lied through their teeth every time they told us they were 'fixing' these programs or that everything was alright." Here in America, *WE* are the government. We cannot effectively deal with liars and the lies they tell because they represent us, and a majority of us elect them because the liars will tell us the lies that we want to hear. We don't take lying seriously enough because of our unworkable ideas about civilized behavior. This is going to end badly, and there isn't a motherfucking thing anyone can do about it so long as "because he was lying" is not an acceptable defense against a battery charge.

78 Posted by: Josef K. at March 16, 2011 10:24 AM (7+pP9)

I think you may be onto something, there.  But how do you fix Medicare/Medicaid (MC/MD to the industry, btw)?

I mean, I can think of things that would make them cost less, but they'd be just as hard to sell on a retail-politics basis.

79 toby looks doable, now i'l need the place by a stream that will grow corn and potatos, and if makin moonshine fails, learning to fish to relieve stress I heard might work..

80 History always gets the last laugh: the story of the "practically unsinkable" HMS Titanic is playing on History Channel right now.

Our "too big to fail" gubmint is this century's Titanic.

(I don't know whether it's Comcast or AoSHQ, but getting a post to "take" is a colossal pain in the ass right now.)

81 We should put someone like Dave Ramsay in charge of the national debt.  But politicians don't like economists.

82 Let's split the Left - a windfall profits tax on domestic oil shale, off-shore oil, and tar sands production dedicated to SS/Medicare/Medicade.  Old people vs the Greens; my money is on granny.

83 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 10:28 AM (Pzf4N)

Eh.

Part of the problem is that, when someone who might actually represent real-world knowledge and values comes along, they get pilloried from all sides.  It would help if we'd quit doing that...

84 Thanks to The Scooter Store, Medicare and my insurance paid for a new scooter without a penny out of my pocket.

85

Now, blame having been squarely fixed: Who Cares?  What good has fixing the blame done?  Did knowing who's at fault miraculously fix the problem?

Wow. I thought I was the only one in the world who thinks this way.

But it is impoortant. For reasons I'll never understand, culpability has become our society's most valuable commodity. We live in a country where failure with a good excuse and a scapegoat is prized more highly than success.

Fortunately, not all of us engage in this perverse, unproductive economy.

Unfortunately, too many of us do, and the people in power are well versed in its mechanisms. Saying "This is the problem we face, and it doesn't matter whose fault it is" only gets "then it must be your fault" by way of response.

(I'm sorry for that. Truly, deeply sorry. And angry, too.)

86

The polls show much of the electorate believes we can balance the budget while merely trimming the edges of federal spending. Those voters will control how much can be done.

If that's true, then the path is already immutable--collapse.

And I'm actually good with that now.  Stage 5 and beyond, I guess.

87 toby - google crockpot still -- http://tinyurl.com/4fd7bdd

88 A note to the older folks on this blog: I know a lot of what I write sounds like "geezer bashing", but the simple truth is that most federal money is being paid out to people over 60. And the money is coming from people under 60. It's a giant wealth-transfer operation, and it's pretty much the primary purpose of the government at this point. I know you didn't plan for it to be this way, but you were in the world long before we were -- this is the world you bequeathed us. We are coming to a point when 80 million people, about 25% of our total population, is going to be over the age of 65. (Japan is facing an even more extreme version of the same crushing demographics.) Younger people are going to be crushed -- either they choose to start and support their own families (with all the expense that entails), or they will pay to support a vast entitlement apparatus for their elders. It's becoming increasingly clear that they won't be able to do both, much less provide for their own old age. This is a monstrously unjust imposition on the young. If you want to keep civilization on a paying basis, you invest in the young, you don't bleed them for every dollar they have. Poor people do not have stable families, or start businesses, or own houses, or have much of a future.

89 How about after you reach retirement age, your children can add you on to their insurance plan just like you were a dependent?

90

The old folks are not the problem when it comes to opportunity to advance. The problem is in an over-regulated climate that punishes people for wanting to succeed. We have this stupid populist notion that somehow success is evil and that hard work means you think you're better than your peers.

Let me tell you something about opportunity: it's a myth. You make your own. My mother arrived in this country at the age of 12 after living in a 3rd world country and growing up in a house with dirt floors. She went to a crappy High School in a crappy part of  Tampa, FL. For her first job, she got a job working at a local TV station that happened to be within walking distance of her house. Her job was as a typist. Not a secretary... that would have been a promotion. Just typing. She worked her rear off and years later, she is now CEO of a station in a different part of the country. No college degree. No trust fund. No country club memberships. Just hard work.

My own story echoes that. 11 years ago, I moved to California with $200 in my pocket. I lived in a tent. I knew no one, had no job, no degree.

Fast forward to present, I still don't have a degree, but I manage about $18M in IT projects for a major company. I make decent money and try to spend it wisely. I'm not that smart but where I lack in intellect, I make up for in hard flippin' work. I've had people stand in my way in more ways than I could count and I could have been resentful because they were better at working the system or had more seniority. Instead, I chose to be even better at my job. Shit, being what it is, stinks. Life is full of it. You can choose to wallow or flush.

Opportunity is a myth. Nobody owes you shit. It's a wide world, do something with it.

91 "Now, blame having been squarely fixed: Who Cares?  What good has fixing the blame done?"

Unless we start a Roman war of conquest for loot, the only possible solutions are 1) we raise taxes on the working segment or 2) we cut benefits to the elderly and retired.

So, whose 'fault' it is ultimately relevant, since it basically will be a large factor in determining which group takes on most of the burden.

Yes, the government did this, but the assholes who did it are long gone and if we hung every politician tomorrow and took their money it wouldn't come near paying for this.

92 Keeping in mind the WI protests, what do you think will happen if SSDI is cut? If Medicaid is cut? Notice I didn't say eliminated, just cut. The folks on these programs in general don't have jobs, so they will be out protesting every day for months. Every bleeding heart will be there to join with them; many of them to raise their profiles and earn some more cash.
 
I just don't see a solution without violence erupting at some point. The violence will likely start on the Left though (really it has already started).
 
Oh well it was a good run USA. I've got front row tickets to the greatest crash and burn ever seen since Rome.

93 MarkC - gonna forward that one on.

94 "Part of the problem is that, when someone who might actually represent real-world knowledge and values comes along, they get pilloried from all sides. It would help if we'd quit doing that..." Whether I sow seeds or pebbles on the concrete pad behind my house, my crop yield is the same.

95 bill@75,

Well when you say it like that, it makes me less likely to support the man. Next thing you know, you'll tell me he likes golf.

96 Monty, do you think it would do any good to shut down the government at this point in order to clarify that even shut down, it's running a deficit?

97 I am looking forward to two rootcanals more than this political fight.  It's amazing the debt markets have allowed us to fuck around this much.

We are fighting over the ashes. We need a leader that will tell people we don't have the money. Start with a National Right to work Law. We need to absolutly kill the public employee unions

Once that is done we tackle SSDI and Medicaid. The States can't afford Medicaid so they will be willing partners.

After that we need to reform Medicacre....Thats the sticky one.Thats the Middle class Entitlement that ends us.

SS, I'm fine paying people now, but those 45 and up, we need to reform it. big time.

And we need to repeal the 17th amendment. 

98 Did knowing who's at fault miraculously fix the problem?

Wow. I thought I was the only one in the world who thinks this way.

But it is impoortant. For reasons I'll never understand, culpability has become our society's most valuable commodity.

I was thinking about his yesterday in regards to the tsunami/nuclear plant disaster, etc.  The MSM (and everybody else, really) immediately tries to hunt down who is at fault.  If a realistic scapegoat can't be found or fabricated, (Sarah Palin/Gabby Gifford) an imaginary one is invented (earthquake/AGW, Katrina/George Bush).

99 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 16, 2011 10:28 AM (8y9MW)

Thanks for telling me about the MC/MD vernacular. As for how to fix them? I can only suppose by limiting their eligibility.

Fewer people eligible, means they spend less. Fewer procedures eligible for reimbursement means they spend less. One example? Those power chairs that are advertised on TV. I have a sister who wants me to get one for my dad, not because he needs one - he uses a walker - but because she thinks she might need one, but only at a date when the government has stopped subsidizing them (she has a bad back).

This is the mind set: I better get it now/I better get all I can. If these programs were only for people with less than $10-15,000 per year in income, their footprint, in terms of employees and expenditures, would be a fraction of what it is now. Would that be enough? Maybe not, but we have to start somewhere.

I really don't know squat about these programs; hopefully this will start a discussion of how to reduce/eliminate these programs.

100

Posted by: toby928™: Popular Front for the Liberation of Wisconsin at March 16, 2011 10:23 AM (GTbGH)

Yeah, I like Lindsey books too. I still get his flyers.

Now, after you build the still, you still have to grow/aquire the corn, you need to malt it or obtain enzymes to convert cornstarch to fermentable sugar, Crush the corn, then you have to obtain brewer's yeast, make and ferment the wort, then, after all that, you get to distill the hooch and sell it. And BTW, I left out a few dozen steps for the sake of clarity.

Happy brewing.

101 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 10:34 AM (TpXEI)

No, whose fault it is is only relevant if you're interested in retribution.

We've already proven- more or less- that you could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every "millionaire" in America and tax the rest of the tax-paying public at 75% and you'd still not be able to pay the bills.

Some additional taxation is an option, but it won't get us there.  The only thing that will get us there is cuts AND restructuring in some combination.

102 Why exert effort to find who caused the fault and assign blame? So you don't  continue to follow the wrong people with the wrong ideas. Ultimately, it's not so much a waste of effort as much as it's a part of self-preservation. Sure, politicians  and activists do it to keep power/employment; but there is legitimacy to attributing blame.

103 Things I would do:

1.  Instead of just means testing SS/MC/MD, I would add in a fecundity test as well.  No kids; you get less - pay more.

2.  Let Adam Smith's Pimp Hand swing - make health insurance a personal deduction and tax the hell out of direct payments to doctors - we should all understand the costs of treatment

3.  Really let that Pimp Hand fall - eliminate Federal withholding - tax day is the last Tuesday in October, let things sink in before election day.

104 Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 16, 2011 10:47 AM (swuwV)

Even granted that's true, isn't the time to assign blame AFTER the crisis has been averted?  I don't care if it's the guy beside me who caught the house on fire- if he's willing to help me get out of the house, we're good.

After I'm nice and safe we can worry about blame and any needed retribution.

105 More thoughts on the 'who is at fault' thing. There's plenty of evidence on who blocked significant reform of Fannie and Freddie, yet many of those same folks are still in Congress doing more damage as we speak. What kind of insanity is that? Fixing blame without consequence is worse than useless as it just encourages more of the same.
 
You cannot even shame them. For they are shameless.

106 Monty, this picture reminds me of you. 

107 Problems with this analysis: 1. Too few people think there's a problem. My Dad -- a retired engineer with a sharp, analytical mind -- has declared that all is hunky-dory with entitlements and I have no worries. This kind of wishful thinking is rampant. 2. Too many people think there can be a tax that doesn't affect them. This is why a VAT gets more and more supporters -- it's essentially invisible and it makes gobs of money. Unless there are cuts we WILL see a VAT. 3. We are shouting into a hurricane. People aren't going to pay attention until the collapse forces them to pay attention, and by then it'll be too late. Conclusion: Boned.

108 "Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 16, 2011 10:45 AM (8y9MW)"

Changing social security is apportioning blame, specifically when many people believe they have a moral entitlement to the program.  The blame game is going to be played.

As to people claiming assigning blame isn't 'productive' - this is a blog.   How productive is talking about Val-u-Rite and scandis?  How productive was talking about the Delaware primary on election night?

109 "The folks on these programs in general don't have jobs, so they will be out protesting every day for months. Every bleeding heart will be there to join with them; many of them to raise their profiles and earn some more cash." If SSDI is truly a pacifier for the underclass, then we are boned even worse than we know. For some reason, I have the image of WOPR zipping through every scenario in his database and concluding that the first cent of social spending always guarantees destruction.

110 AllenG (Dedicated Tenther): "After I'm nice and safe we can worry about blame and any needed retribution."

Multitasking ain't so hard. I can assign blame and work a remedy pretty much simultaneously. In fact I can't work the solution without assigning the blame. It's sort of a key<->lock association.

111

AD @ 103: Good point. A huge chuck of the financial crisis of 2007-08 was due to the actions of Senator Dodd. But he convinced people it was all the Republicans and their fat cat, millionaire buddies on Wall Street. Now, Dodd's protigé is the president.

As for blaming the people of this country, that's valid, too. On aggregate, we're intellectually lazy and quick to rationalize. The wake-up alarm on this problem has been sounding for 30 years, and we've been hitting the snooze button mumbling nine more minutes in our sleep.

112

Happy Days Are Here Again! 

The Skies Above Are Clear Again!

So Let's Sing A Song of Cheer Again! 

Happy Days Are Here Again!!!!

 

From wikipedia: The song was the finale to the film, Chasing Rainbows, a movie about Drunks, Bootlegging and Prohibition.......

Today, the song is probably best remembered as the campaign song for FDR's 1932 presidential campaign. Since Roosevelt's use of the song, it has come to be recognized as the unofficial theme of the Democratic Party.

 

What is it about history repeating itself, first as tragedy and then as farce? 

113 "...It beats having to actually save our money and pay our bills."

Posted by: Monty at March 16, 2011 10:23 AM (4Pleu)

 

I'm wondering if I should just say "fuck it" and take my monthly roth allotment and bet it on black or red at one of the casinos in town.

114 "Even granted that's true, isn't the time to assign blame AFTER the crisis has been averted? I don't care if it's the guy beside me who caught the house on fire- if he's willing to help me get out of the house, we're good." And, when that malicious, piece of shit arsonist beside you trips you in the foyer and slams the front door shut on you after getting himself out of the house, hindsight would tell you that early blame fixing was probably a good idea.

115 Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 16, 2011 10:54 AM (swuwV)

But there's a difference between understanding the cause, and apportioning blame.

If I trip over something, knock over a lantern (okay- old school, but just go with it) and the house starts burning, knowing that I tripped and knocked over the lantern is important.  That doesn't assign blame, necessarily, though.  It just speaks to causation.

Who to blame is a much bigger question: why did I trip?  Did someone leave the "something" some place it shouldn't have been?  Was I not paying attention?  Was I dorking around?  Those are all things for afterwords.

If you want to pinpoint the causation of the problem of Entitlements, that's easy, too.  Margaret Thatcher may have said it best: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

116 But nations can exist in extremis for a long time -- a surprisingly long time. Hell, we may crutch this poor broke republic clear into the 2030's before reality asserts itself....

Posted by: Monty at March 16, 2011 10:23 AM (4Pleu)

 

Yes, the Ponzi can be extended for longer than anyone could imagine.  As long as Governments, Central Banks, Finance industrys play the game and not admit to reality, it goes on.  That's why they love Fiat money.  They can always print more.(Hell, they don't even print it anymore. That takes to long. Seriously)

However, when it does end, it will be like a f'ning Tsunami:  By the time you see it coming, it'll be too late to save yourself.  2008 financial crisis was just a warm up.

117 I don't have a great solution to MC/MA/SS, but I think the resistance to cuts isn't quite what many people assume it is.  Almost everyone with functioning synapse now knows we can't afford these entitlements at current levels.  I suspect most people would be more willing to accept cuts to their benefits if they were confident that the pain wouldn't be squandered by giving the savings to some politician's favorite interest groups.  As it is, most people assume that that is what will happen, and with good reason.  They figure "why should I sacrifice what I was promised, when the wastrels and spendthrifts who didn't save and plan like I did will reap the benefits?" 

Any viable plan must first assure that the savings will remain savings.  I don't know exactly how that would be done, but my guess is that Ryan is working on it.

118

So, the economic apocalypse is our punishment for being stupid for countless generations?  Awesome.

^{And I don't mean "God" punishment.  I mean consequences.}

119 The "pissed off bondholders" are the Chinese. So who do you think our elected politicians are ultimately more likely to bow to, voting citizens or bond-holding foreigners? And in case no one has noticed, it is still a huge controversy in our government just to meagerly cut discretionary spending. So obviously it will be some years before a new wave of politicians are finally forced to do address entitlements as the source of our crippling problem. Even at that point, it will an extraordinarily painful political feat just to reduce entitlement benefits by as much as 5% while concomitantly raising the retirement age. (Yes, that's how addicted Americans are to entitlements.) At that point, our catastrophic debt crisis will be so gigantic that these small measures will only serve to reduce the rate at which the crisis grows. So at some point, the real question becomes whether to partially default on US bonds (primarily held by foreigners) or to slash entitlement benefits to our citizens by more well more than half.
Keep a few things in mind: 1 - It will be obvious that gutting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits will have an immense impact on our society. Such dramatic reductions in Federal monetary assistance, means our elderly and disabled will suffer and die at much greater rates as a consequence. 2 - The Chinese will likely be our biggest global competitor. 3 - Devastating inflation is coming. Were it not so, then we could go on spending like this forever. And inflation means that dramatically reduced entitlement benefits will be worth even less. 4 - Pissed off bond-holding foreigners don't get to vote in our elections. Our senior citizens and their children do.

120 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 11:01 AM (Pzf4N)

Okay, but that goes to "willing to help me get out of the house" not to blame.  If he's NOT willing to help me get out of the house, I have a whole different set of problems.

121 "But there's a difference between understanding the cause, and apportioning blame."

Go back to my original comment - Vic says the cause is the younger generations.  I respond that the issue is because baby boomers didn't have enough children.  This is, in fact, the cause of our problems.  If we had 5 workers for every retiree like we did twenty years ago, the program would still be drawing a surplus.

That is the cause, but you took it as apportioning blame, since, well, it is.

Cause and blame are very closely linked, and can't be separated dispassionately.

122 "If he's NOT willing to help me get out of the house, I have a whole different set of problems." Exactly. We have a whole different set of problems, and these problems center on venality.

123

"but the simple truth is that most federal money is being paid out to people over 60"

And you have proof of this assertion where?

Oh, that's right - you don't. 'Cause it's not true.

Any reason we should believe the other parts of your daily ^* rants?

^* (none during the height of Japan crisis posts, thankfully)

124 "That is the cause, but you took it as apportioning blame, since, well, it is." The root cause of this mess is the delusion that we can construct a Ponzi scheme that will work.

125 The nation finds itself in the position of being legally obligated to spend more money than it takes in as revenue.

Matters of legality don't typically bother the Obama DOJ. Just have them ignore the law as usual.

126  Damn, this is depressing. There are a ton of us who worked and EARNED the privilege to spend what's called the Golden Years in relative ease and comfort.
 
 The means to do so were achieved by our OWN effort--not relying on others. The only thing I ever asked was an opportunity to DO that. It was there all along, free for the taking. Takes a while to see that, I guess.

  We won our personal war on poverty a while ago, due to our long, hard effort. We aren't rich, just nice and comfortable. We did this legally, morally and ethically, and there's no apology forthcoming. It is unconscionable to me that anyone should think that what we have deservedly EARNED may be taken from us. That will NOT happen.

 I'm more than willing to bust my hump to resolve these problems by legislative means,as the alternative is scary to contemplate.

  But at day's end, I will strive to keep what we have earned, by whatever means necessary. And you may read into that what you wish.

127

The present system institutionalizes moral hazard. What if I decide NOT to take "my" social security? Well, it theoretically helps the country. But if no one else does it, I'd be a big chump. And the country would slide into oblivion anyway. So I take it even if I don't need  it or am unwilling to have lower cash flow "that I've paid for."

I really haven't thought through the implications of this, but I am close enough to geezer hood to know that some geezers don't work after retirement/social security because of taxes, etc. Eliminate taxes on income, earned and passive, for 65 and older on the first $80K joint, allow deduction for medical insurance and treatments without itemizing, then end Medicare. Try to reverse the moral hazard and incentivize individual responsibility and individual choice.

Other stuff: change local zoning laws to allow "granny flats" and allow tax deductions for family provided home-care for the elderly.

But I doubt that this will do much of anything even if there was a political will. Americans no longer seem interested in transcending human nature but instead loading up at the all you can eat buffet. I'm not a gun guy and not a big fan of violent confrontations. But I'm not an idiot either. So I'm preparing for the worst. But because I am an American, I will never surrender.

128 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 11:08 AM (TpXEI)

But that's where you're wrong.  The problem isn't the worker:retiree ratio- the problem is more fundamental that that.  All the boomers also having 5 kids would have made the problem less bad right now, but the problem would still exist.

So, at worst, the small worker:retiree ratio is the proximate cause of the issue (why we're in trouble RIGHT NOW) but it is not the root cause.

The root cause is that, as medicine gets better and people have to do less manual labor and few people have truly dangerous lives, more people are living farther into retirement.

I asked, the other day, if anyone had stats on Average Life Expectancy if you factored out infant mortality and deaths directly attributable to non-natural causes (car crashes, murder, soldiers dying in war, etc.).  Nobody had that, but the closest I can find to that puts the Average Life Expectancy at around 85, assuming you survive past infancy and don't get yourself killed.  So, with a 62 retirement age, we're looking at an Average of 13 years of SS + Medicare, and that doesn't include probable Medicaid for end-of-life care.  And ages of 95+ are becoming more common.

This is a huge drain which was not planned for.  This is the root cause which must be addressed- which is why I (and others) keep saying "cuts alone won't do it."  All you do is kick the can down the road.  Yes- make cuts, we need the can further down the road- but you're also going to have to make fundamental changes of some kind in how SS/MC/MD work.

129 "The root cause of this mess is the delusion that we can construct a Ponzi scheme that will work."

It's a Ponzi scheme that works as long as population is growing.  As soon as population stops growing, it stops working.  It is flawed for this reason.

130 AllenG (Dedicated Tenther): "Margaret Thatcher may have said it best: 'The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.'"

But see, that's exactly the point. We and our counterparts have diametrically opposed viewpoints and won't agree on this particular issue. Ever. There is no melding of mindthoughts to arrive at a solution, so assigning blame is essential. It's part of the process to survival. Either they win the argument or we win the argument. To win the argument is to understand fault and attribute blame. As you noticed, FRONT TOWARD LEFT touched on this.

And specifically here, we're not talking about a difference of winnowing down a disagreement of, say, 10-20%. We're talking 100% apart.

131 Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 16, 2011 11:18 AM (swuwV)

That depends on who you're calling a counterpart.

People like irongrampa (and Darleen, when she weighed in the other day) aren't 100% away from us.  They understand something has to change.  I daresay, despite his vehemenance above, irongrampa would even agree to some cuts if they were equitable and "everything else" had been done.

If you're talking about Democrats- well, they're the people who aren't willing to help us get out of the burning house- we have to deal with them differently.

Irongrampa, btw- I still don't think anyone is talking about cutting current retirees' benefits, or those of people about to retire.  Unless we have absolutely no other choice.

132 Obamacare is the solution to the financial problems posed by Social Security.

133 AllenG (Dedicated Tenther): "If you're talking about Democrats- well, they're the people who aren't willing to help us get out of the burning house- we have to deal with them differently."

Yes, that's who I'm talking about. I'd narrow the target group further to say Liberals/Progressives (as opposed to lumping all Democrats together), but I find them legislatively and functionally interchangeable.

134

Let me be clear, people.  There is no need for alarm.  My new program of high-speed rail will revitalize the economy and balance the budget.

Now, where did I put that five iron?

135 "The root cause is that, as medicine gets better and people have to do less manual labor and few people have truly dangerous lives, more people are living farther into retirement."

Social security is pay as you go.  So long as you have a x workers for 1 retiree, how long the retiree is alive shouldn't matter, since you always have x workers for him.

What you are claiming is that people are living longer, so there are more retirees, so the ratio of workers to retirees drops.  If you have a steady population increase, that can be covered because more people are entering the workforce than leaving it.

The real problem is that the ratio of workers to retirees is down, and the main reason for that is that our population stopped growing.

136

Sorry @ the sockpuppet...

" I suspect most people would be more willing to accept cuts to their benefits if they were confident that the pain wouldn't be squandered by giving the savings to some politician's favorite interest groups"

Bingo. Give the man a Cigar. One could cover the lifetime SSI disbursments of entire Fl. town with just a (relative) few "disability" sections of SSI.

Run the d*mn numbers. Take the total # of SSI age related recipients, X the max $ figure/year. Subtract that from the total SSI budget. Try it sometime - it'll be eye opening.

(FWIW, it's how we defeated a local attempted tax increase "for the children"  - we showed that it would be cheaper to hire a car & driver for every bussed schoolkid in the district than to $ for the new transportation budget)

137 AllenG, our retirement income isn't dependent on SS, so sure, if necessary, we could get on along minus that. We structured retirement independent of SS, thanks to a very bright individual who foresaw problems with it.
  Like others, I'm sure, these is resentment toward those who contribute nothing to society, but have a hand out for anything free. Damned if I'd bother with them on a voluntary basis, they can simply go die.

138 Go back to my original comment - Vic says the cause is the younger generations.

No I did not. I said the cause was the grasshoppers; i.e. the Peggy Joseph's of the country.

Look at what AllenG was alluding to. It is called root cause analysis. First you write the problem statement. (very important).

The annual expenses are greater than incoming coming in.

Common sense would tell you to quit spending so much and increase income.  But that rarely ever happens.

So why does that not happen? Because the Democraps have literally controlled the budget since 1930 and they believe in spending on socialism. When the Republicans on a rare occasion took over they either were blocked in cuts or they joined in the spending, just not at as big a level.

So why do they all want to spend so much. Because they honestly believe it is the ONLY way to get elected.

Why is it the only way to get elected? Because 50% of the people pay no taxes and don't care what the tax rates are.  It doesn't matter if the tax rates stifle buisness, it doesn't matter if excessive regulation stifle business. None of that matters to them because they still get their monthy check to put gas in their car and pay their rent in their gov subsidized apartment.

So where do they think the money comes from? Obama's stash of course. So why are people this stupid and lazy allowed to vote?

Racist racist racist!

So there you go, racism is the root cause. I denounce myself.

139 "It's a Ponzi scheme that works as long as population is growing. As soon as population stops growing, it stops working. It is flawed for this reason." That's the structural flaw, but it has been further hobbled by extended lifespans, the boomer bulge, the economic mess, and rampant fraud in SSDI. As if that weren't enough, the surplus was spent as soon as it came into the treasury, and cranked our non-zero-based, "discretionary" budget expectations into the stratosphere. We cannot afford the government we have. Beyond just operating costs, the adverse effects of government regulation and taxation are playing havoc with the revenue side of the sheet.

140 Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 16, 2011 11:26 AM (swuwV)

Well then, fire away.  I'm not wasting time defending them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 11:28 AM (TpXEI)

Not true- which is why Ponzi schemes always collapse.  It's a combination of things- of which worker ratio is one- but also includes things like cost creep (it's simply more expensive per year to be retired, now), defined benefits (which, though its somewhat hidden, SS is) and a variety of other things.

So you're right, in the sense that more workers per retiree would make the situation better, but even that would even that would eventually cease to work.  If, for no other reason, the number of jobs available is finite.  Even before the Recession, businesses often laid-off (or chose not to replace) workers because their efficiency was increasing.  In the boom days, that was less of an issue (for a variety of reasons) but the lack of workers only accelerated the problem, it's not the ultimate cause.

141

If you are an oldster on Social Security, you paid into the SS fund every paycheck for your entire working life.  When FDR started the program, he designed it that way on purpose.  You were paying for your own retirement, every week, through your payroll deduction. 

On the other hand, SSDI is a waste and a fraud and a boondoggle.  It's how young people who want to hang out and do drugs all day pay for their groceries. 

All branches of government need to stop paying out to those who didn't pay in first.  These means no more government cheese for anyone who is here illegally.  No SS for them, no freebies at the nearest hospital, no Section 8 housing or public housing, nothing. 

If you want to ask elderly Americans to take a financial hit, after they've lived here their whole lives and paid their payments faithfully into the system, then you first must stop all payments to the moochers and freeloaders......you know, the Peggy Josephs of the world.

We are looking at quite the cage match, oldsters vs freeloaders vs bondholders.

 

142 "No I did not. I said the cause was the grasshoppers; i.e. the Peggy Joseph's of the country."

Ahhhhh.  I took grasshoppers to mean 'young', like from Kung Fu.  I see now your meaning was like the grasshopper from the ant and the grasshopper.

In which case, yes.  We need to stop a lot of that crap, and doing it at the same time we change Social Security.

Ugh, it's definitely Wednesday.

143 When FDR started the program, he designed it that way on purpose.

No he didn't.  The man already gets enough credit he doesn't deserve, don't give him that, too.

SS was designed as a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning.  People were allowed to retire long before they'd paid in for 20 years.  IIRC (and I don't have it in front of me, so: grain of salt) the first retirees had only paid in for months before they were allowed to collect benefits.

It was always a lie that you were saving for your own retirement.

144 and they might take $50,000 cash-money right now to get out of the program

I'd tempt them with a buyout of this sort, but rather than payments zeroing out, going down to the most minimal SSI level paid to someone never worked a day in their lives along with transition to medicaid rather than medicare.

That's something people on the high end of the scale with other means of retirement income and medical plans might be tempted by.  I know quite a few retired guys who are independently wealthy, collecting on the high end, who don't really need that $2,500/mo who would be pretty tempted to take a lump sum with drastically reduced monthly payouts.

145 Monty, do you think it would do any good to shut down the government at this point in order to clarify that even shut down, it's running a deficit? If I could just make stuff happen, magically, I'd shut down the entire federal government for a year. Period. No federal services at all, only enough military action to protect our own shores. Otherwise, the United States would essentially cease to exist for an entire year. No tax collection, no benefit payments, no monetary outlays. Nothing beyond simple "heartbeat" stuff to enable resuscitation a year later. (We'd probably have to figure out some debt-service stuff, though, or else we'd default pretty much immediately.) I'd be interested to see if the result is utter chaos, or if the shutdown really didn't matter all that much in actual day-to-day terms. If we could get through a year (even if battered) with no federal government at all, that would be a mighty argument for making the central government much smaller. I think we'd do fine with a federal government 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the one we have now. (And at maybe 1/5 the spending.)

146 "Like others, I'm sure, these is resentment toward those who contribute nothing to society, but have a hand out for anything free. Damned if I'd bother with them on a voluntary basis, they can simply go die." Once you factor human behavior into the analysis, this is the most moral position to hold.

147

And we've got John "crocodile tears" Boehner leading us. Unfuckingbelievable.

148 "It's a combination of things- of which worker ratio is one- but also includes things like cost creep (it's simply more expensive per year to be retired, now), defined benefits (which, though its somewhat hidden, SS is) and a variety of other things."

But has it risen that much in the last ten years?  Remember that even in 2001 we were spending social security money on bridges and other stupid crap because we had surpluses.  We had surpluses because we had a high enough ratio of workers to retirees.  And with the cost creep has been wage increases.

"If, for no other reason, the number of jobs available is finite."

The economy grows based on the number of people in it.   If the US had a larger population, I would argue we would be better off for a large number of reasons.

149

SS was designed as a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning.  People were allowed to retire long before they'd paid in for 20 years.  IIRC (and I don't have it in front of me, so: grain of salt) the first retirees had only paid in for months before they were allowed to collect benefits.

It was always a lie that you were saving for your own retirement.

 

I'm sorry I didn't finish my thought properly, what I meant was that FDR designed the SS program so that those paying in THOUGHT they were paying in each week for their own retirement, which would put in their minds the thought that they had paid for those benefits, therefore SS recipients would fight tooth and nail to keep those benefits for which they had already paid.

FDR wanted SS to look like a pension program to the masses, he knew perfectly well it was a redistribution of wealth program designed to look like a retirement program. 

My bad.

150

I still don't think anyone is talking about cutting current retirees' benefits, or those of people about to retire. 

This point was central to Bush's privatization plan. Young people could opt to take charge of 10% of their SS contributions, middle-aged people could manage 5%, and current retirees and those about to retire wouldn't be allowed to participate because he didn't want to mess with money that people would soon need.

Candidate Obama's response in October 2008 was to ask Florida voters "what would have happened to their pensions if the Republicans had their way and all their Social Security was invested in the stock market". (Honest answer: nothing.)

But that's what you get when you try to do something -- even take a baby step like Bush tried to get us to do. I guess DOOM! is for lunch, too.

151 So who do you think our elected politicians are ultimately more likely to bow to, voting citizens or bond-holding foreigners? Our citizens are in for a rude shock, I think, because I can almost guarantee you that bondholders are going to get the nod. Just look at what's going on in Greece and Ireland right now, countries with far more liberal social policies than we have here. They are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to keep bondholders whole, even at the expense of their own people. The US is the holder of the default reserve currency, the center of the banking and investment universe, and the largest economy in the world. If we wish to maintain those things, then we are most assuredly going to screw beneficiaries before bond-holders. That "full faith and credit" thing, once lost, may never be regained. Losing this position in the world may not strike a lot of people as a bad thing, necessarily; let someone else do the dirty work! But the problem is: loss of power also means the loss of ability to influence events. And that's never a happy prospect for a sovereign nation in the world. Sovereign nations that cannot influence events do not remain sovereign for long.

152 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 11:45 AM (TpXEI)

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying specifically that you're right about proximate cause.  The reason there is a problem RIGHT NOW is there aren't enough suckers workers to fund the scheme.  But the other underlying problems would still exist even if there were.  We wouldn't be having the problem right now (probably), but we'd have it in another 10, 20, 30, or whatever years.

153 The solution isn't to let the Peggy Joseph's die. The solution is to not allow them to vote. Once that happens the politicians will start wising up to the fact that spending money will not get them reelected and we might be able to fix this shit.

154 I'd be interested to see if the result is utter chaos, or if the shutdown really didn't matter all that much in actual day-to-day terms.

Some idled Federal employees could probably be replaced with local volunteers.  ex. it wouldn't be too hard to get nature enthusiasts to volunteer for a lot of the park service jobs if the alternative were to be the parks closing down.  Some of the state parks in FL use volunteers for some of the park guides labor already.

The same volunteer scheme could be extended to a lot of state/local parks.  If someone wants a field mowed for their special interest group's activities, they'll step up and mow it if the alternative is a padlocked gate and grass 4' high.

155 The solution is to not allow them to vote.

Complete fantasy of course, but wouldn't it be grand if you had to present a W2 in order to vote?

156 The last time we had a "shut down" the only thing that shut down was the national parks.

157

The solution is to not allow them to vote. Once that happens the politicians will start wising up to the fact that spending money will not get them reelected and we might be able to fix this shit.

Wasn't that the reason Thoreau went to jail, protesting the poll tax?  The founders had it right, you need to be a worthwhile member of society in order to cast a vote.

158 Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 16, 2011 11:50 AM (nzRBj)

Or privatize the parks.  The Dallas Zoo used to lose money like a man who can't count playing 21.  They privatized it a couple of years back (Thanks, Mayor Tom), and now it a) doesn't drain city resources and b) turns a profit.  They're looking at doing the same thing with some other such recreational services, I think.

159 Hey-we have rights too.

160

Once that happens the politicians will start wising up to the fact that spending money will not get them reelected and we might be able to fix this shit.

One can shout "DOOM" from the rooftops, wish for gov't shutdowns, and foment age warfare, but this (above) is the only real, workable solution.

161 "Remember that even in 2001 we were spending social security money on bridges and other stupid crap because we had surpluses." The federal government grew because it had access to surplus revenue. We lived large, we got used to living large, and we have lost the ability to distinguish necessities from luxuries. The real question at this point in time is whether we will acknowledge that the revenue is no longer there. I do not think we will acknowledge that, so we are playing a game of chicken with the people who hold our debt. Democrats are evil. Democrat politicians are evil for lying that everything is hunky-dory. Democrat voters are evil for putting democrat politicians in office to tell the lies that the democrat voters want to hear. Keep this in mind should SHTF.

162 Posted by: Boots at March 16, 2011 11:52 AM (neKzn)

Actually, they limited it even further: Land Owner didn't mean "productive citizen."  Mostly it meant: "more likely to have the education and leisure time to understand WTF was going on."

In modern society, that's less of an issue, and I think you're right about only allowing the makers- not the moochers- to vote.  Unfortunately, my ancestors kind of poisoned that well during Reconstruction...

163

It's a Ponzi scheme that works as long as population is growing. As soon as population stops growing, it stops working. It is flawed for this reason."

Let's rework that for accuracy:  It stops working when there's not enough money coming in to cover what  you pay out.  It's not even that there aren't enough younger folks to pay in--it's that not enough of them are, while there are more and more oldsters claiming larger and larger chunks.  It's a forumula for a four-man cage match, old vs leech vs bondholder vs taxpayer.

I'm long on folding chairs.

164 I see this as a classic "lifeboat" situation - someone needs to get thrown from the boat to save the rest. In this case, it will need to be the secession of the red states to form a new nation under the old pre-progressive Constitution, and leaving the debt with the blue states.

165 Posted by: Rebar at March 16, 2011 11:57 AM (uPpYX)

It may, yet, come to that.
It's whispers and crazy-talk, at the moment, here in TX, but if we start getting the bill for CA and IL spending binges, expect "Secede!" to become a bigger part of our discourse.

166 Well, they could always raise taxes:

"Tax his tractor, tax his mule; tell him, taxing is the rule.
Tax his oil, tax his gas, tax his notes, tax his cash
Tax him good and let him know, that after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more; tax him till he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave, tax his sod in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove him to his doom."
Once he's gone, we won't relax. We'll still collect inheritance tax."

Some anonymous Irish guy

167 "The solution isn't to let the Peggy Joseph's die." Once you factor human behavior into the analysis, yes, it is. How many Peggy Josephs wouldn't be Peggy Josephs if they knew there wasn't a net to catch them?

168 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 12:00 PM (Pzf4N)

That's the one problem with the story of the Ants and the Grasshopper.

In the real world, the Ants would have used the Grasshopper to supplement their food-stores.

169 The real problem is that the ratio of workers to retirees is down, and the main reason for that is that our population stopped growing.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 16, 2011 11:28 AM (TpXEI)

Our population never stopped growing, but the rate of growth declined from the baby boom.

If life expectency keeps increasing then each retiree will be in the system longer and the population of retirees will grow faster than would have been assumed when the system was designed. In order to offset that, either the eligibility age for benefits must be increased or the rate of population growth has to increase to keep the worker / retiree ratio where it needs to be. The latter did not happen and there isn't anything we can do about that now (unless you want to import more foreign labor - but what jobs will they fill?). So now we are left with raising eligibility ages as one part of a solution.

170 Or privatize the parks.

I suspect things like parks could work well on a volunteer basis.  Any park that can't generate enough volunteers and materials donations to operate doesn't have enough visitors/users to be worthy of keeping open.  If the visiting/using public won't support something, it deserves to die and that land get retasked/sold.

171 so... we're boned, right?

172 "It's whispers and crazy-talk, at the moment, here in TX, but if we start getting the bill for CA and IL spending binges, expect 'Secede!' to become a bigger part of our discourse." The crazy talk is the ant/grasshopper idea of bailing-out the profligate states. I sincerely hope this Pima County thing gets some legs under it because I've long believed that splitting the country is the way through this mess with the least bloodshed. AnonymousDrivel nailed the problem in a comment, above. We are not in the same ballpark with our opponents, so we cannot reach any agreement with them. Hell, we cannot even agree to the same set of facts.

173 Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 16, 2011 12:04 PM (nzRBj)

So you're saying completely defund, and don't replace?

Naa.  I still like mine better.  Mine works like yours (if it doesn't make its costs back, it'll get axed) while also still continuing to provide at least some low-level employment.

174 One of the reasons that Medicare and Medicaid are so atrocious sink-holes is that elderly people use a lot of medical services -- especially as they approach their terminal years -- and pay for less and less of the cost. Let's use this scenario: I am 90 years old and I break my hip. My medical alternatives are: a) get immediate treatment and palliative care for the broken hip, and deal with the pain and loss of mobility; b) have replacement-hip surgery, at fantastic cost, and deal with the pain and loss of mobility. At 90 years old, the new hip surgery brings almost as many risks as it does benefits (anesthesia, infection, rejection, rehabilitation). In a market-driven medical environment, the 90-year-old himself would make the call: spend the money on the new hip or not. But in a welfare-driven medical environment, the 90-year-old doesn't (usually) incur any direct cost at all, so he will relentlessly use any medical technology he can to stave off the inevitable. No one ever sees a bill, so the true costs are spread out and diffused among everyone -- and the costs balloon exponentially as the hidden bureaucracy takes its toll. This is what conservatives mean when they speak of "death panels". Rationing is going to happen, like it or not; the costs we're incurring now are just too grotesque to continue. This is why a socialist approach to medical care is horrible: the state essentially tells you whether you live or die, regardless of your own wishes. A privatized medical apparatus allows you to scale your own care with your ability to pay. The state will never care as much about you as you do about yourself. Medical care consumes resources, time, and labor. Those costs have to be paid in some way, and unfortunately, we have chosen the most inefficient and expensive way possible to pay them.

175 Posted by: Monty at March 16, 2011 12:10 PM (4Pleu)

One of the themes I think we need to start getting across to people is this:
"I have no 'right' to the produce of another's labor."

Of course, we should have been shouting that from the rooftops since (at least) my parents were children, but we didn't, so we need to start now.

176 "I have no 'right' to the produce of another's labor." That train sailed long ago. So long as we elevate life/limb over property through the "reasonable and proportionate" loophole in the common law, we are stuck in a bad situation that can get only worse.

177

One of the reasons that Medicare and Medicaid are so atrocious sink-holes is that elderly people use a lot of medical services

No S, Sherlock. Even worse, though, is that the patients have little to no say in how much is spent on their own care. Give people a $ figure & allow them to keep the unspent and you'll see expenditures drop like a rock.

The real $ vortexes are in goods - ever see the "hoveraround" commercials? "We'll get you a chair even if you've been turned down"? News flash - the payment rate hovers (sorry) @ 98%, even though an estimated 20% ever use the d*mn chairs.

Entire industries have sprung up around the payoff schemes - and could disappear tomorrow w/no real reduction in services...

178 In other doom and gloom news close to 800,000 will be stricken with cholera in Haiti this year.

179 Most of this boils down to personal responsibility, which also flew out the window long ago.
 

180 Again I say, eliminate Social Security and Medicare; provide assistance through welfare/medicaid if necessary; give seniors tax breaks or other incentives to buy health insurance; means test the hell out of all benefits; drug test all welfare recipients; eliminate ALL benefits for non-citizens; and DRILL BABY DRILL!!!

181 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 12:26 PM (Pzf4N)

That's why I'm saying we should be making that case.  I don't think it "sailed" so much as it was moth-balled.  The moment Government entered (largely took over) the benevolence sector, acts of benevolence fell off, while -at the same time- recipients began to see what had traditionally been viewed as a gift of mercy now as a "right" they got because "they paid their taxes."  It didn't take long for that "because" portion to go away.

182 Last year I was in a bad economic place - I was going through a divorce, and had made some unwise financial choices that had in part led me there. At any rate, I had these big ass credit card bills, and all those ads about we can help you out, call this number. So I am on the phone with the consultant, and they ask all the income/outgo questions, and at the end they say, sorry we cannot help you because even if we got your credit card payments to zero you still would be underwater. We suggest you contact an attorney about bankruptcy. Okay, that wasn't a good day. I did not in the end go bankrupt, but I had to radically restructure my life, and today I live within my means, a decent but not extravagant life. I don't have the opportunity to borrow as much as I make so that I can have twice the income, and certainly could not do it year after year. Eventually the day will come when enough people realize it will only work with radical restructuring. Until that day comes, we are just boned.

183

1:21 17 March 2011

Kyodo

BREAKING NEWS: Dollar falls below 80 yen in N.Y., approaching 16 year record low vs. yen

184

In other doom and gloom news close to 800,000 will be stricken with cholera in Haiti this year.

Winning the Future!

185 The last time we had a "shut down" the only thing that shut down was the national parks.
Posted by: Vic at March 16, 2011 11:52 AM

When Clinton turned their operations over to China.

186

In other doom and gloom news close to 800,000 will be stricken with cholera in Haiti this year.

"Winning the Future!" under the Bill Clinton George Bush management.

187 @183 AllenG The idea of government as a force for good is entrenched, and so long as we are ok with that, we are all guilty of assuming a right to the product of others' labor. I'm not flaming you when I say this, but in comment @174, you wrote: "Naa. I still like mine better. Mine works like yours (if it doesn't make its costs back, it'll get axed) while also still continuing to provide at least some low-level employment." Where do you draw your line? The reason I ask is because there are at least seventy million people in this country who would vote to draw the line someplace beyond what you think is reasonable. This slope is far too slippery to safely navigate.

188 BREAKING NEWS: Dollar falls below 80 yen in N.Y., approaching 16 year record low vs. yen It won't stay there. The Japanese are simply "calling their Yen home" to deal with their local crisis. It doesn't mean the Yen is any stronger from an international standpoint -- in fact, it's worse now than it's ever been. The USD is weak, yes, but this is an artifact of the Japanese needing immediate liquidity.

189 DOOM! It's what's for Dinner Breakfast! Dinner
...when you're down to one meal a day, it's before bed so that you can at least get to sleep. So much for the most important meal of the day when folks moved off the farm and into the over processed and "natural flavor" artificially sweetened food stuffs.

190

AH, hahahaha!

Rush is bitch slapping Captain Trouser Crease.

191 Monty at March 16, 2011 12:53 PM

I'm sure that you're right. The Kyodo News is a hard link to reach. But they quote the amount of Japanese Banks yen infusions into their market to keep it afloat (one figure translated around $150billion, but don't quote me on numbers).

192 What's the big deal? In the end we are all dead. Suckas!

193 I think that number is more like 350 billion, but I could be wrong

194 and ensuring that the collapse ending is the one we get.

Posted by: toby928™: Popular Front for the Liberation of Wisconsin at March 16, 2011 09:56 AM (GTbGH)

At this point, I don't see how we can avoid that.

195 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 12:52 PM (Pzf4N)

I'm not sure what you're asking, there.  I believe in the privatization of anything that isn't the government's business.  Charity, recreation, and "enrichment" are not the governments business.

Do you have an example of something you think I might not find acceptable so I can be more sure what you're asking?

196 Lots of 'geezer' bashing going on.  I'd certainly like to see the data demonstrating that most entitlement spending goes toward people over 60.  I suspect it depends upon how you define entitlements.  I'm 54 and have paid into the social security system for nearly 40 years.  Personally, I do feel entitled to something in return.  I'm certainly in favor of raising the retirement age to better reflect the increase in life expectations.  That is a fair compromise.  Discontinuing payments to those who have never paid into the system is also a sensible solution.  What doesn't work is villification of hard- working Americans based upon their birth dates.

197 They won't see that (either because they can't, or because the refuse) until you've cut everything down to the point where it only barely can function at its most core goals.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 16, 2011 10:09 AM (8y9MW)

And that alone takes a lot of time, and is why I think ruin is pretty much inevitable. There is no stomach and no desire to do the hard work.

198 In the late 90s, I knew a guy who was a staffer for a Republican Senator. This guy was solidly conservative and could articulate conservative points and ideas with natural ease. One odd thing, though: This guy was a big supporter of federal arts funding because it made "important" things like community theater possible. No shit. He really told me that once. He knew all the reasons and arguments for why his position was wrong, but he could not apply them to his position. It's a human nature problem. Once we started feeding the beast, there was no way we could not end up where we are now.

199 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 01:11 PM (Pzf4N)

I agree.  And I'll agree that he's wrong with you.

I think I'm far, far to the Right of most of the nation.  I just also happen to think I'm right about the issues.

200 I'm 54 and have paid into the social security system for nearly 40 years. Boy, this fallacy is just never going to die, is it? Doesn't matter how often I explain that SS is a tax, that there's no "account" to draw money from, that SS is not an asset you own, and that the government can cut or abolish your entitlement at any time...it just goes right by some people. You paid a tax, and that money is long gone. You didn't pay "into" anything. The government does't "owe" you anything. Any money you get from Uncle Sam is squeezed from current taxpayers, not taken off some pile of money with your name on it in a government vault somewhere.

201 "Do you have an example of something you think I might not find acceptable so I can be more sure what you're asking?" My point was that you tacked, "while also still continuing to provide at least some low-level employment" to the end of your sentence. I saw the substantive difference between your solution and Purple Avenger's solution to be a transition period (implied by "privatization") that would cost the taxpayers more money at least during its execution. I read your "provide at least some low-level employment" as a justification for that expenditure. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

202 The true story of "The Fair Lady"

Que music then flower girl in ragged clothes approaches English gent with basket of wilted flowers.

Girl: I say, buy me flower capt'n.
Gent: Here's a shilling but tell me, wouldn't you like me to teach you phonetics so you can get off the street and open a flower shop?
Girl: Hey blimey capt'n but you must get off the sauce.
Gent: But you will improve your condition and get off the street!
Girl: I goes down to the town office and gets a cheap permit for a quid. I gets me these flowers out of the dust bin and those flower shops in the toft district for free. I sells a few each day. Total time working 1 hour a day.
I go home and take care of my 6 children then. I gets me 100 pounds a month each for food for these brats. I got me a doctor who says they can't be learn'n so I gets me another 100 pound a month for "disability" for each. I gets a coupon every month from the State to buy groceries with. At the end of the year I gets me 1000 pounds each for them brats for EIC.

All this for an hour a day and maybe some days not even that. If's I open a store I'll have to pay rent, pay taxes, pay employees, and bust my ass fighting regulations 100 hours a week.

Yeah, take them voice lessons to the Honey Badger because he don't give a shit.

Que Music at the race track Gent losing on bets: Gent goes home throws out all his voice equipment and hunts up a scrunt to dump some illegitimate children.

Kicks up heals in front of fire place and smiles.

203 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 16, 2011 01:17 PM (Pzf4N)

Ah.  No, I meant actual privatization.  Turn it into a business with employees.  Private ones, though, not government ones.  The difference between privatized and what PA was suggesting (if I understood) was that he wants all volunteer- that is, no one gets paid, and I'm in favor of it becoming a for-profit business with employees who make at least the minimum wage.

204 198
I will be 56 this year.
You might get SS and then you may not, I would be prepared in case the latter is what occurs.
I have taken the steps to make sure I will at least have food to live on for a year in case things go sideways.
I have done some other things along with the food.
If nothing happens I am out a few dollars, but if things go bad and I haven't prepared then I am screwed.

205 "Boy, this fallacy is just never going to die, is it? Doesn't matter how often I explain that SS is a tax, that there's no "account" to draw money from, that SS is not an asset you own, and that the government can cut or abolish your entitlement at any time...it just goes right by some people." Having thrown my hands in the air over this issue well over a decade ago, I begrudgingly admit that you've presented a workable start to resolving the problem. Some form of your comment @203 should be printed in very large, very bold, (maybe even very red) type on the front cover of the SSA's annual personal statements. I think Congress has the power to make this happen.

206 Vic, that's ffffing brilliant. True & sad, but brilliant. Oh, and don't forget - 3 of the "children" are over 18, so there's 4 votes for "more"...

207 "I keep telling people that it's not a question of if cuts are going to happen to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- that's a mathematical certainty at this point. The real questions are "when" and "how'."

Monty, every time you say this I think to myself that this so reminds me of the story of the hiker who ended up losing his arm in order to live.  I finally said this to one of my friends and he said "oh no, not at all.  In this country we will continue the entitlements and we will downsize the military."   He claims that people will "take to the streets" to stop elimination of any entitlement" and I said well, you might be surprised that people might take to the streets to prevent what Clinton did to the military from happening again.  It was an odd conversation as his final parting shot was "notice that NASA is gone forever and the military will be in a similar position very soon".  I yelled after him "the private sector will step in where NASA has left off, this is a free market capitalism democratic republic after all"  

It's interesting how two people can look at the same set of data and see two different ways to handle said data.

208 Thanks for the uplifting post Monty.  Added bonus: I'm allergic to the kittehs.

209 Monty, every time you say this I think to myself that this so reminds me of the story of the hiker who ended up losing his arm in order to live. I've used the same metaphor. It's like a guy with a gangrenous limb saying, "But I don't want to lose my arm! Do whatever you must to save it!" Response: "Chum, you already lost your arm. All you have now is an infected piece of dead meat that will kill you if you don't cut it off."

210 Excellent!  It takes some of the voltage out of that third rail.

211 Oh, and since someone long ago asked, here's some baby vampire bats.  Have a day!

212 I agree with your prediction regarding the Pol's reaction.  However, why not take the opportunity to tighten up the enrollment requirements for these programs?  Lower the "poverty" threshold, increase the retirement age by a six months, remove the loafers from the disability rolls, etc. 

There are a lot of cuts that can be made without cutting the actual programs.  That's a first step in the right direction.  The Dems have proven that they will scream like stuck pigs over NPR and Cowboy Poetry, so why not give them 1,000's of paper cuts?

213 What's the point of being a productive citizen anymore in this country?  The swath of human debris that I see from the 6th floor window of my office pisses me off more and more everyday.  They are nothing but the lazy, fat, baby making teat suckers of this government and I resent the fact that I am forced to support their laziness and poor life choices.

And then there is this from the County of San Diego:

http://tinyurl.com/4c2lo49

It makes my blood boil.

214 -194.47 (-1.64%)  11,660.95

215 If you are an oldster on Social Security, you paid into the SS fund every paycheck for your entire working life.  When FDR started the program, he designed it that way on purpose.  You were paying for your own retirement, every week, through your payroll deduction.

Wtf, this is false. There was never any fund, it was a tax from the start.

216 216
Pride in the fact that you have taken responsibility for yourself.
 

217 Monty, the belligerence was obvious.  this is not a belligerent guy but he bordered on rabid anger and I've been seeing that a lot lately.  It is a frightening pre pubescent response to an adult situation.

In the past he has said "get the money from the bankers, from the rich, from the corporations" and I've said "stop giving money to every country asking them to be our bestest best friend until the next payoff".  that one gets him as he puts that in the entitlement category.

Last night I was listening to a program which someone asked me not to mention anymore but a guest was on to discuss the little bureau for consumer debt that elizabeth warren is heading up.   The guest was upset that the bureau was not answerable to congress and that she was responsible for all the robo signing furor last year.  This year, the person felt that her next project was to get 20 billion from the banks (the person made it very clear that this would not be a willing payment) and that money would be used to help people out with their mortgages.  The person came right out and said that the payouts would go to the special voters just before the election.  She said that Carter established the department of education to reward his
supports and this is similar to that.   I've seen elizabeth warren on CNBC a lot and she always seemed to be a lovely woman with good intentions.  this guest described her as a far far far left academic who has never worked a day in her life in a real job who managed to get the ear of the president and talk him into setting her up in this bureau which doesn't answer to anyone.

I'm trying to remember when elizabeth warren dropped off the radar, at what moment and for what reason.  somehow I'm wondering if she got this bureau for more of a reason than "she got the president' ear".

218 So does the state now have a compelling state interest to outlaw abortion. You know an extra 30 million taxpayers would look pretty good right now.

219 Monty, in case you want to listen to the discussion, it is here:  it's 3/15/11  12 a.m.  Mary Kissel AWSJ (it's worth a quick listen)

220 Link for 222, again, hope this one works.

221 I really really wish that guy who does the program that shall not be mentioned would, in addition to putting out podcasts, put up transcripts too.  right now no one is thinking about this but it is there lurking on the horizon.  It's like over a year ago now when he was discussing the PIGS and everyone thought he was totally nuts and look, he turned out to be totally right.  Usually he picks up and puts out stuff earlier than anyone and that "stuff" turns out to be really important later on.

222

Monty, I'm quite aware that there is not some social security lock box. Save your condescending exasperation. Call it a tax or whatever you'd like. The fact is,  Social Security is not like other 'taxes'. It has always been presented as an insurance program.  Consider, we receive statements presenting what our expected benefits will be based UPON WHAT WE'VE PAID.  If you don't want to refer to it as 'putting into' a system, fine.  The reality is that SS has been presented as a social contract.  You pay money toward current retirees and, when you get older, others pay toward yours.  Yes, I know that the system is unsustainable.  As I said, we need to make some serious changes starting with the retirement age.  Let's not pretend, though, that those who have paid SS for decades are not going to get screwed when it all falls apart.  

223

mpfs,

You do know that the program you linked to is funded by...

SS.

(and yes, I know it's a paper shuffle, Monty)

224 Posted by: cgood at March 16, 2011 02:30 PM (8GXGA)

Here is the problem, the welfare people will say "their contract is a social contract too" and the GM stockholder sort of felt they had a contract too and the bondholders of the states that may eventually default will feel they had a "social contract" too. 

Did you ever have a dollar in your checking account with over a month to go before payday?  At least the congress and senate and executive branch feel confident that they don't have to worry about this cause heck, just print more money.  But normal regular people don't have that luxury.  They can't get blood out of a stone, they can't willfully deny that they are devaluing the dollar with every printing and bailing.  As time goes by, there are going to be way more losers here than winners.  The guy who hosts the show that shall not be mentioned had a guest on who wrote a very good book about social security and he had a fix for it that would not be easy but viable.  Notice, you aren't seeing him on a book tour on the MSM and you aren't seeing him interviewed anywhere, in fact, we aren't seeing him at all.  Makes you wonder if they don't want to fix social security at all and that would be another discussion.

225

It takes 3.9 years for someone with an average income to break even on Social Security. After that, it's just welfare for old people, social contract be damned.

226 -242.12 (-2.04%)  11,613.30

227 The first state that declares independance from these United States and opts out of SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, the IRS and the rest of the ponzi schemes, fraud and graft brought to you by the Federal government will realize a landrush that will rival the nineteeth century Western land settlements...The Federal government has become a burden on the states through profligate spending, illegal, immoral, and fradulent behavior.  Its broken and the political will to fix it is not there...Only the states can preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers...The corrupt Federal government is a lost cause.

228
R4R4 ¥«©`¥Í¥ëR4 ؜‰Ó

229

It's possible to buy Asics Running Shoes at low price with best price at online sale store. Today, our store supply Cheap Asics Shoes for youth who are like to do any sport/running. So, you can shop your favorite Asics from us. Recommend you Asics Tiger Sale for running or any sport exercise.

230 I have been used to having a simple life style.Less things to think about,less people to think of and less worries to feel,they are also my hopes of the coming new year.

231 Blood now,find good blog is very differcult,but find good clothing such north face jackets,or find cheap oakley sunglasses as similar as oakley sunglasses outlet.thank you,you can go north face outlet to shopping.but the article are different.

232

Asics Running Shoes are your best sport shoe at Asicsrunningshop,Inc..

233 st service and cheapest price now! Thanks for your free articles!!!

234 d cheapest price now! Thanks fo

235 ice now! Thanks for your free articl

236 yiwu online
yiwu product
yiwu products
yiwu products
yiwu map
yiwu market map

237 thank you for sharing,i love this information.Joe Flacco Jersey Ray Lewis Jersey Ray Rice Jersey Ed Reed Jersey