1

Simple solution:

If you're under 50 years old as of today, your Social Security benefits get cut in half.

2

none of them will do what needs to be done... bring the Doom!

3 Kinda early for a double rainbow of doom.

4 Oh this place is just a fucking ray of sunshine...

Can't y'all just blow smoke up my ass until the hordes come,  take my stuff and kill me?

5

Is there any doubt the democrats and the unions want to destroy everything so that everything is ripe for a government take over?

The democrat party is the party of total corruption and asshole.

6 Closing Question: How much would you have to cut the federal budget to get back to the FY08 debt/GDP level within 10 years?
Answer: ~ 35%

Doable.  Laws can be changed.

7
so their plan "only" takes 12 years to pay off this year's debt.

Small correction: they don't actually "pay off" the debt - they just slow budget growth so that GDP growth can make the debt a smaller fraction of GDP. When I say "pay off," I mean that they finally get back to the same debt/GDP ratio we had before.

8 You should be thanking me.

9 Can't we change math through public policy ?

10 If you're under 50 years old as of today, your Social Security benefits get cut in half. go to zero.

A much better solution, IMO.

11 Obama's plan was never designed to pay down the debt. It was designed for the sole purpose of increasing taxes. He and the rest of the communist breatheren love them sum tax and spend. Everytime they are in power and control they increase taxes and increase spending by 25% to 50% over the tax increase.

12 Time to give it up ... this is starting to feel like Big Purple Baseballs when Pony Tail Guy just had to post a daily report on his latest bike ride.

13 What would it actually take to fix the problem for real?

Repeal every law and regulation that has been enacted since 1900 would be a good start.

14 On the plus side, the 'nothing will be done until the DOOM is upon us' is also our energy policy and strategy for developing America's oil resources.

15 Hey, I got an idea, it worked for us!  Inflation!

16 10 If you're under 50 years old as of today, your Social Security benefits get cut in half. go to zero.

A much better solution, IMO.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 23, 2011 10:32 AM (TpXEI)

Sure, but i'm also not paying SS taxes then either.

17

It's almost like President Sandwedge saw the Cloward-Piven strategy of overloading the welfare rolls as a bit too slow and decided to start from the top and do it to the whole federal bureacracy in one fell swoop.

It's more efficient that way.

18 Here's the solution.  All Vegans and Vegetarians don't get Social Security.

19 Like that 35% cut, can I have  moar?  We need to change the debate from cuts measured in percent to cuts measured in decibels, the dB is a unit of power and we do want the federal  gov to have less power.  The libertarian in me wants a 15 dB spending cut.

20 13 What would it actually take to fix the problem for real?

Repeal every law and regulation that has been enacted since 1900 would be a good start.

You ARE including in that the 16th and 19th amendments, right?

GREAT IDEA!

21 Geoff....we could cut the machine 35% with means testing....Medicare plan d reductions and undoing the Ogabe "surge".....

22

Closing Question: How much would you have to cut the budget to get back to the FY08 debt level within 10 years?
Answer: ~ 35%

That factoid highlights an important point that the left tries to obscure - the debt problems we face are massive and structural, not a temporary blip which can be "tweaked" by taxing a tad more or cutting a little here and there. There is no easy fix. Govt spending has grown too much for too long, and has become too intertwined in our economy skewing it into a downward spiral paid for with govt. credit card debt and future promises that we can never afford.  The Fed has chosen to deal with our economic problems by debasing our currency by printing money. This has artificially juiced stocks and commodity price inflation, but hasn't created jobs. Meanwhile Obama and the Dems have ramped up deficit spending to such an extreme that even sensible cutbacks are decried as "extreme". Our illusionomics economy on its current course is a trainwreck waiting to happen, and it will happen sooner than most people expect.

 

23 Resubmit the 2006 budget as this years. 

24 You ARE including in that the 16th and 19th amendments, right?

GREAT IDEA!

Of course, but that brings on another thought. We would probably need to go back to 1861 for the repeal. That's when the federal government became all powerful and enabled all the laws to be passed to begin with.

25
Geoff....we could cut the machine 35% with means testing....Medicare plan d reductions and undoing the Ogabe "surge".....

The House is locked in a bitter struggle over cuts that are an order of magnitude less than that. 35% cuts can certainly be done on paper (though probably over a 3 - 5 year timespan), but are they politically realistic?

26 Closing Question: How much would you have to cut the federal budget to get back to the FY08 debt/GDP level within 10 years? Answer: ~ 35% in good years, aren't tax revenues usually around 19%? The last couple years, it has been at 14-15%... so a decent economic recovery should close the gap considerably. I'm not saying that massive cuts and reworking of the whole thing don't need to happen, but a $5-700B shortfall is easier than $1.5T

27

TARP, the Wall St. Reform bill, ObamaCare and the Porkulus Bill all need to be repealed, asap.

Immediately return to the 2008 spending level or less. Immediately.

Lift the moratorium on oil drilling. In fact, defunding the EPA immediately would help.

We've got to get serious about this, elect serious people and generally clean house in Washington. Each and every socialist and progressive representative, judge, administrator, and dog catcher needs to be tossed out of office. Unions need to be busted and any organization that is connected with George Soros in any way needs to be investigated.

Immediately.

Did I mention that this needs to be done real soon?

28 When you understand that the explosion of debt under Obama is the the Cloward-Piven strategy incarnate, what's going on is easy to understand. Obama is destroying this country systematically and purposefully with the intention of bringing about a collapse. Then, rebuilding from scratch, a socialist paradise will emerge.

29 The 2006 budget was $2.7T.  All the work has already been done.

30 25 geoff,

not yet....Ogabe is blowing his capital on an "elective war"....

there is NOTHING we can do really this two years but we can lay the groundwork to go hell bent for leather in '13

31 With all the talk of doom maybe this picture will cheer you up. 

32
I'm not saying that massive cuts and reworking of the whole thing don't need to happen, but a $5-700B shortfall is easier than $1.5T

I think you're confusing deficits and debts. We already owe almost $10 trillion. Per Obama's budget (as corrected by the CBO), in 10 years it'll be over $20 trillion. At a lending rate of 5%, the interest alone will be $1 trillion/yr.

33 28.  When you understand that the explosion of debt under Obama is the the Cloward-Piven strategy incarnate, what's going on is easy to understand. Obama is destroying this country systematically and purposefully with the intention of bringing about a collapse. Then, rebuilding from scratch, a socialist paradise will emerge.

Barry forgets he became the worlds greatest gun and ammo salesman when he was elected.  There will be a purge alright after the collapse, but not what he thinks.

34 Geoff, you mentioned my big hidden concern with Ryan's plan, which is that it down not have any margin for error. It tries for a soft landing by spreading the pain out, but figures S-4 and S-5 on page vi clearly show that his plan calls for deficit spending until 2060. And an increase in debt held by the public (which excludes the third of the debt that is intergovernmental transfers [eg the SS Trust Fund]) to 100% of GDP. And the debt burden is immaterial, because the total of all mandatory spending, which is almost all welfare (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, housing supports, food stamps, etc) already consumes +/- 100% of federal revenues. And that just keeps getting worse. If Congress does not cut welfare payments of all kinds, we are finished.

35 31 With all the talk of doom maybe this picture will cheer you up. -------- Not content with being our Gorbachev, Obama is *also* trying to be our Yeltsin?

36 Repeal every law and regulation that has been enacted since 1900 would be a good start.

I think you could get some traction behind a sunset rule - every law has a sunset date no later then X years after enactment.  Old laws would have an indexed sunset date - ie. all of the first ten Congress' laws get sunsetted this year, eleven thru twenty next year.

37 <a href="http://shopcheapshopping.blogspot.com">shop cheap</a><BR>
<a href="http://shopcheapshopping.blogspot.com/2011/03/shop-cheap.html">shop cheap</a><BR>

38 @32 Geoff CBO is FOS. We owe $14+ T. CBO does not count the money that the Feds owe the various trust funds. See the Treasury's website for an accurate statement of the Fed's debt. www.treasurydirect.gov/np/bdplogin?application=np

39 Nice Post !!! [url]http://shopcheapshopping.blogspot.com
[url]http://shopcheapshopping.blogspot.com/2011/03/shop-cheap.html

40

 Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker posted an article about this topic...again.

 Stop by Zero Hedge for additional insight.

 "Teh Doom" is here, folks. As Denninger says, it's mathematically impossible to save anything. Cut all of it - slash and burn - by 50% and we're still screwed. Slash it by 70% or 80% and we're still screwed.

 We've already hit the iceberg, folks.

 But keep re-arranging those deck chairs...

 Hell, even Forbes has a clue...

41 Has anyone ever watched that video "end of america" that advertises on Beck?
Is this Porter Stansberry of Stansberry and associates a huckster?

42 You're doing it wrong. Think about how great it is to have a President named Barack Hussein Obama. And don't miss my NCAA post-Tournament show!

43 @34 I meant the interest burden is immaterial, not the debt burden.

44 re: geoff yeah, i was thinking deficit... still, cut current spending 35% and you would be close to a balanced budget... which is why i was thinking in those terms. As the economy recovers to where unemployment numbers should be, tax collections (especially on the income side) rise considerably. Projections for what needs to be done to salvage our fiscal situation vary quite a bit depending upon how healthy the economy is.

45
CBO does not count the money that the Feds owe the various trust funds.

In all these numbers, I'm only talking about public debt, which is the standard debt metric (since internal debt can be eliminated by fiat).

See the Treasury's website for an accurate statement of the Fed's debt.

That's where I pulled the number for the current public debt (it's actually $9.6 trillion).

46
Is this Porter Stansberry of Stansberry and associates a huckster?

Yes. Not everything he says is wrong, but he has some major inaccuracies.

BTW, the big mystery investment that he'll send you his free brochure to tell you about is . . . . farmland.

47 Since Ryan has been told by CBO that they cannot conceive of an economy past 2037 (the date was 2054 late year), he needs to make some changes to reflect that. What I would like to see is a faster overhaul of giving benefits only to those who need them (instead of his gradual one) and a plan as to how to best cut benefits.

48
Projections for what needs to be done to salvage our fiscal situation vary quite a bit depending upon how healthy the economy is.

Yes, and I'm afraid that those are optimistic. CBO's prediction (which was used by Ryan and the Obama commission) is that we'll start hitting 4%+ GDP growth next year, and then 5%+ growth in 2015. That would be great, but I'm skeptical.

49 40 "Teh Doom" is here, folks. As Denninger says, it's mathematically impossible to save anything. Cut all of it - slash and burn - by 50% and we're still screwed. Slash it by 70% or 80% and we're still screwed.

You could even cut the entirety of the discretionary budget and we'd still be screwed.

50 @45 "(internal debt can be eliminated by fiat)" Sure, that is true; however, then SS instantly becomes completely insolvent even on paper. Not that honesty in accounting wouldn't be a good thing. It might lead more rapidly to the necessary slashing of the welfare state.

51 Simply write off the debt to the SS Trust Fund.  It's gone.  What is the use in pretending it will be paid back and then paying interest on it?  As long as we reform it going forward - i.e. - later retirement - reduced benefits - higher caps on contributions.  Done deal.

Start over.  And, while we're at it (and while I am feeling magnanimous) use the TARP fund to pay down state's debts to zero, as long as each state first renegotiates all public employee contracts and converts all public employee pensions to 401(k)'s valued as of right now.

We need a re-boot.  We need to get this shit off our back and start moving forward.

Ok.. hit me with it.. I know my ideas are impractical.. impossible?  But, why not?

52
Sure, that is true; however, then SS instantly becomes completely insolvent even on paper.

Yes - but in that instance, the "fiat" would include dissolution of SS.

53 BTW, the big mystery investment that he'll send you his free brochure to tell you about is . . . . farmland.

Posted by: geoff at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (Fj/WG)

I figured that while listening to that video in the background at work.  What are the assets that you don't have to report to the Fed Govt?

54 I think that at this point our only realistic choices are the status quo plus the proposed ineffectual budget plans, which leave the next generations as slaves to the debt, or total collapse.  At least a total collapse would pull the rest of the world down with us and reset the markets.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm admittedly somewhat of a dunce re economics) but wouldn't that erase everyone's global debt?

55 @52 And thus shall the future be won.

56 Why wasn't anyone thinking about the effects of the Boomers retiring (among other things) back when we actually had time to solve this problem on our terms?

57 And, while we're at it (and while I am feeling magnanimous) use the TARP fund to pay down state's debts to zero, as long as each state first renegotiates all public employee contracts and converts all public employee pensions to 401(k)'s valued as of right now.

That would only be a start in terms of fixing CA's budgetary problems. Make the states submit balanced budgets that include rainy day funds and require that they pass legislation making balanced budgets law and let each state decide how to accomplish that.

58 56 Why wasn't anyone thinking about the effects of the Boomers retiring (among other things) back when we actually had time to solve this problem on our terms?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 23, 2011 11:24 AM (UO6+e)

"political suicide"

59 56 ETA: I understand entitlements are the 3rd rail of politics but I'm surprised someone like President Reagan didn't address the issue more thoroughly. Though not having Congress definitely would have put a dint in doing something meaningful. _*sigh*

60
Why wasn't anyone thinking about the effects of the Boomers retiring (among other things) back when we actually had time to solve this problem on our terms?

You mean during Bush's term when he proposed SS reform but was beaten back by the Dems who claimed there was no problem?

Along those lines, a lot of libs like to say "What if SS had been privatized: all those accounts would have been wiped out by the stock market crash!" They don't seem to realize that stock market crashes typically result in temporary losses of 15 - 50% of your portfolio value. When SS crashes, that will seem like a really great deal.

61 Ah, it's good to get boned first thing in the morning. And from two people at once no less

62 "Why wasn't anyone thinking about the effects of the Boomers retiring (among other things) back when we actually had time to solve this problem on our terms?" Lots of people were thinking about it, but the half of the country whose will to power depended heavily on spending payroll taxes as they arrived demagogued any reform attempts with the then-elderly until it became the "third rail" that it is today. The GOP does not get a pass for its complicity borne of fear, but this is 99.9% the fault of democrat politicians and the voters who put and returned them to office.

63
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm admittedly somewhat of a dunce re economics) but wouldn't that erase everyone's global debt?

At the cost of most of their assets. I don't think that's a desirable scenario.

64 Every long trip begins with the first step of DOOM!

65
I figured that while listening to that video in the background at work.  What are the assets that you don't have to report to the Fed Govt?

That I don't know. My winsome smile comes to mind...

66
And thus shall the future be won.

If only. AARP is amazing. I just turned 50, and even before I did, there was an AARP membership card in the mail. Membership? $16/year. You can't afford not to join. So they're huge.

They are going to shred any politician who starts messing with SS or Medicare benefits.

67 At the cost of most of their assets. I don't think that's a desirable scenario.

Posted by: geoff at March 23, 2011 11:30 AM (Fj/WG)

No, not at all desirable.  I'm just a silver-lining kinda gal!

^{and trying to figure out some kind of scenario that doesn't leave my kids and grandkids boned for their entire lives.}

68 They are going to shred any politician who starts messing with SS or Medicare benefits.
Posted by: geoff
------
I'm not so sure about that.  AARP is out for AARP first and foremost.  If they can make money off the deal, they're all for it.  Those fucking weasels backed Obamacare, even with it taking $500 Billion out of Medicare.

69 I just wish there was a way to realistically address this in a manner that relays the gravity of the problem without leaving seniors feeling threatened. As it is, we are risking a great deal of political capital discussing reforms that don't even touch seniors.  

70 66 [...] They are going to shred any politician who starts messing with SS or Medicare benefits.

The DCCC already started their campaign to shred Rs discussing these issues:

“Cutting retirement benefits but protecting big oil?” one newspaper ad reads. “{Enter name} and his leaders want to CUT your hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits rather than cutting big tax breaks for big oil.”

71 The only way to get real dialog going about cutting entitlements is to have realistic alternatives to support those affected before even starting the conversation. Off the top of my head those could include support to community charities to pick up the slack; perhaps some kind of means-tested "I'm needy" ID that gets the bearer to the front of the line...??

72 @66 I have an offer. I'm in my early forties. Pick a cutoff age that excludes me. 45, 50, 55, whatever. Continue the existing SS program for them. Tell everybody else that the USG is out of the pension bidness. I'll keep paying to cover the oldsters, even though I'm never going to see anything. BUT, no one born after 1990 ever has to pay into SS again. I'll be the methadone that gets us off the leftists goddamned generational theft program, but leave my kids the fuck alone.

73
The DCCC already started their campaign to shred Rs discussing these issues:

That's undoubtedly going to be a very successful campaign. That message will have a lot of appeal to people who worked for 45 years and have inadequate private income for their retirement. Which is true of the preponderance of retirees, who get 35% of their income from SS.

74 Why wasn't anyone thinking about the effects of the Boomers retiring (among other things) back when we actually had time to solve this problem on our terms?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 23, 2011 11:24 AM (UO6+e)

They were. It was "fixed" three times. And each time it was "fixed" the Democrat congress simply increased spending and broke it again.

75 The cut-off age proposed by Ryan is that anyone aged 55yo and higher has no change to their benefits.

76
I'm in my early forties. Pick a cutoff age that excludes me. 45, 50, 55, whatever.

I said the same thing back in my 20's. "Cut me off so that we can get rid of SS." Did they listen? Noooooooooo.

77 The only way to get real dialog going about cutting entitlements is to have realistic alternatives to support those affected before even starting the conversation. Replacing one form of government charity with another won't change the dimensions of the problem. You can't clean a room by just shifting stuff from one pile to another pile, or by just stuffing everything in the closet. The problem in your formulation is the world "realistic": you're speaking in political terms, while us doom-criers are speaking in mathematical terms. Reality is going to trump politics, whether we like it or not.

78 The DCCC already started their campaign to shred Rs discussing these issues:

“Cutting retirement benefits but protecting big oil?” one newspaper ad reads. “{Enter name} and his leaders want to CUT your hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits rather than cutting big tax breaks for big oil.”

Two can, and should, play that game.

“Cutting retirement benefits but protecting CPB?” one newspaper ad reads. “{Enter name} and his leaders want to CUT your hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits rather than cutting subsidies for big bird.”

79 74 They were. It was "fixed" three times. And each time it was "fixed" the Democrat congress simply increased spending and broke it again.

I wish the Republicans could successfully use those "attempts at reform" as another example of the Democrats being not only unserious but inhumane in the way they've extracted money and promised benefits.

80 @77 The support to local charities shouldn't be a dollar-for-dollar shift, and could be weaned over time.  In an ideal world, of course. Never happen in real life. Again, just off the top of my head.

No, math is not my strong point, but the only solution that will work is one that is realistic both politically and mathematically.

81 re: geoff I'm rather pessimistic on that as well... aside from everything else going on, I think we are in a generational lull... if we look back over the history of the stock market, there are long periods of growth and long periods of volatile stagnation. I figure these long periods of stagnation represents the economy finally adjusting to the new capital and productivity gains. The last one lasted from ~1965 to 1982, and I date the start of this one to ~2000. If this trend continues, I figure we will have at least a few more years of teh suxxor before a solid recovery

82

The premise of the article makes no sense: "Destablise the economy so that the Government can come to the rescue". If the economy looses its viability due to astronomical debt and interest payments, there will be almost no government revenue from taxes. There will be 50% unemployment and very high prices for food and energy. A nonexistant government with no resources is not going to "COME TO THE RESCUE".

 

If you can, activate that "Victory Garden". If you live in the city, you have no hope.

83 I'm thinking that closing immediately the Dept of Ed., the FDA, the EPA, the Dept of Interior, the Dept of Energy, a 15% cut in Medicare, and 15% cut in SS, along with the recovery that accompanied this would do the trick.  People keep talking about cutting wasteful spending, without realizing that 'entitlement spending' alone is greater than tax revenue.

84 I'm thinking that closing immediately the Dept of Ed., the FDA, the EPA, the Dept of Interior, the Dept of Energy, a 15% cut in Medicare, and 15% cut in SS, along with the recovery that accompanied this would do the trick.

You could cut SS by 51% simply by eliminating the fraudulent SSDI program.

85 People really get myopic about this as they approach old age.  When they first started trying to fix SS back in the 1980s, if I mentioned that something needed to be done, my mother would just go ballistic. She was normally  more objective than that and it stunned me.   That's how most of them get; they make it to retirement and it's all me-first, give-no-quarter.  That applies to Greatest Gen, Silent Gen, boomers I don't care who.  

Seniors practically rioted back in the early 80s - I remember they were on the streets in Chicago when there was some conference, and they surrounded the attendees' cars and started rocking them side to side - freaked the shit out of the decision-makers.   

I tried to Google for the story but can't find it.  Anyone here remember it?

 

86

All very interesting, but

Squirrel! Libya!

Anyone seen any projections on the cost of Barky's lame Libyan adventure?

87

 trying to fix SS back in the 1980s, if I mentioned that something needed to be done, my mother would just go ballistic.

We need to calculate and notify recipients of Social Security of the amount they actually contributed including inflation adjustments vs. how much they have taken out, and are projected to take out. Otherwise it's just a vague "I paid what I owed into the system". Well,  no you didn't if you're taking out (far) more than you ever contributed. Those that do so have crossed the line to freeloader in that case. Every penny they receive that they didn't contribute is going to have to be paid by someone else. It needs to be spelled out. Many will not listen, but it's important to make this case on a large scale to individuals to mitigate the inevitable protesting. And as Vic mentioned, SSDI is a huge drain too.

88 We need to calculate and notify recipients of Social Security of the amount they actually contributed including inflation adjustments vs. how much they have taken out.

I did that on the last old folks bashing thread and I would have to live to be over 130 years old to break even. That is without any interest added.

The first SS "fix" occurred in 1972 with a 20% increase in payouts and removal of the requirement that you have to work and "earn" future payments. With that SS became just another welfare program.

Then in 1977 someone said, hey this is going broke so the Dem congress raised the SS tax to 6.15%.

In 1983 rate increases were accelerated and retirement age increased. Also half of it became taxable income.

Now rates have increased to 7.15% and there is talk of even more age increases. That while the actual longevity of people aged 65 has only increased by 5 years since 1930.

I say again, no more 'fixes".

89 The next ten days should be interesting - Portugals government could collapse, thus kiboshing the deal with Germany on their debt and on the 30th the Irish could miss a major coupon payment.

90
Now rates have increased to 7.15% and there is talk of even more age increases.

Don't forget that your employer matches your contribution, so the rate is really doubled.

91 Don't forget that your employer matches your contribution, so the rate is really doubled.

I included that in my calcs. Also the employer contribution does not cap out.

92
I included that in my calcs. Also the employer contribution does not cap out.

??? I don't think so. The total tax is currently 12.4% for SS and 2.9% for Medicare, for a sum of 15.3%.

93 "Like that 35% cut, can I have  moar?  We need to change the debate from cuts measured in percent to cuts measured in decibels, the dB is a unit of power and we do want the federal  gov to have less power.  The libertarian in me wants a 15 dB spending cut."

Don't worry.  That kind of a spending cut happens automatically after the US government defaults.
Or a nuclear war.

94 OK, you are correct. I didn't use a max for them in the calcs anyway.

95

I did that on the last old folks bashing thread and I would have to live to be over 130 years old to break even

The problem is that many of those collecting full benefits now paid into it at a MUCH reduced rate and  much lower salary cap amount compared to what those of working now are paying. In 1965 for example, the employer and employee each paid just 3 5/8% each only up to a maximum of $4,800 of salary. Today it's 6.2% each up to $106,800 in salary. I realize that inflation eats up some part of this difference, but those working now are paying FAR more into the system in percentage and absolute dollars, even after adjusting for inflation, than those who retired in the 1980's and 1990's who almost certainly did not pull their weight with regards to their contributions matching the benefits received. Also, up until a few years ago, couldn't you get full, or near-full SS benefits after only 8 or 9 years of contributing?

 

96 The problem is that many of those collecting full benefits now paid into it at a MUCH reduced rate and  much lower salary cap amount compared to what those of working now are paying.

Actually since 1973 people collect who have never paid at all so it is no wonder that it is going "broke".

97

Voluntary opt-out.

50% of the American public wants its goodies, let them keep paying into the pyramid scheme.

Cut me out of it and let me keep $2200 a year.

98 Every long trip begins with the first step of DOOM اعلانات مجانيةاعلانات