1 But but but the'll cut the UN's budget That will solve everything

2 Benefits should of been invested at the 6 - 8% historic return averages of the stock market and there would be enough money to pay for social security and the like. If I start at 25 years old and put aside 5 - 10% of my money in an investment acccount, by the time I retire at 65 or 70, I would have over $1 million dollars. The problem is that the government has never saves money, they only spend into debt, so after inflation rears its ugly head and they have to pay out benefits, they blame seniors for asking for too many benefits beyond what their contributions were - total bs.

3 Pay As You Go apparently means "You forced me to pay for someone else for 55 years and now that it is my turn it's 'Fuck You""?  I don't think so. 

4

The Real Problem, and the one economists for some reason miss (maybe because its too easy?), is that we don't MAKE anything anymore.

The Government has put up so many roadblocks to actual production of Goods, that we loose to overseas vendors.  We can no longer Mine or drill for our own resources... energy prices are rising... which WILL increase transportation costs.

But because the Government economists measure the health of the economy by the DOW, and GDP (transfer of money) they overvalue non productive portions of the economy, over that which actually produces Goods.

The ONLY way out of the Debt mess is to GROW our way out, and the only way to GROW our way out is to Manufacture goods, and sell them to others... But we can't do that when our own Government both stops us from using OUR own resources, and puts artificial extra costs (regulatory) on our goods.

 

5 But but but what about the poor? What about Grandma eating cat food and who's going to pay for her walker? I don't care what you say about my magic feathers, I have to step off that cliff or children will die!!

6 USA out of Europe!

7 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 27, 2011 11:11 AM (AdK6a)

This.

But also- we need to do away with SS and Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP.

The thing is, the economy will occasionally recede.  The Economy is, more or less, cyclic, so growth alone isn't the answer- growth won't last forever.  So, while you are correct that real economic growth (and less government) would help bail us out for the moment, the long term answer is still to do away with these Ponzi schemes.

8 Posted by: George Orwell speaking for all politicians and 52% of the nation at January 27, 2011 11:20 AM (AZGON)

If you were stepping off a cliff, I wouldn't stop you.  What you really want, though, is to throw me off first.

9 Benefits should of been invested at the 6 - 8% historic return averages of the stock market and there would be enough money to pay for social security and the like. If I start at 25 years old and put aside 5 - 10% of my money in an investment account, by the time I retire at 65 or 70, I would have over $1 million dollars.
 Posted by: Mike
-------------------------
The problem is not the rate of return.. I believe the government is accruing interest on those funds at a rate of 8%.  The problem is they didn't really invest it.  They spent it by loaning it to themselves.  And all we have is an IOU sitting there accruing 8% interest that will never be paid!

10 Fritz, I see that your survival checklist does not include any means of self-defense.  Shouldn't a prudent action be to acquire and train with firearms of appropriate roles (12g pump/autoloader, pistols, long rifle with scope, knives, phased plasma rifle in 40W range, etc)?

11 This really is a rock and a hard place scenario.

The left built an overly expensive welfare state that we simply cannot afford. The math just DOES NOT WORK.

On the other hand, the State Media will destroy anyone who attempts to seriously reform the unsustainable spending.

12 the long term answer is still to do away with these Ponzi schemes.
Posted by: AllenG
---------
You can't do away with Medicare.  Politically, it is impossible.  So, they need to get on to fixing it as best they can before we waste even more billions.

13 You can't do away with Medicare.  Politically, it is impossible.  So, they need to get on to fixing it as best they can before we waste even more billions.

A complete and utter collapse will do wonders to any government program.

14 If you were stepping off a cliff, I wouldn't stop you. What you really want, though, is to throw me off first. Why is it my schemes are always so transparent?

15 By the way, the Republicans are simply not preparing the buget battlefield well enough.

Right now the message we should be hearing is closer to Rand Paul's - we are gutting everything to try and save SS. Getting rid of whole Departments should be on the agenda. They should be talking, constantly, about "Obama's unsustainable level of spending."

This gives them the option then of forcing Democrats to evade the question of "how will you save SS?"

Now SS needs serious "reform" too - but for now let's make the argument to the public - Would you rather have the CPB, Obamacare, etc and no SS - or get rid of all that waste and "save SS"?

16 10 Fritz, I see that your survival checklist does not include any means of self-defense.  Shouldn't a prudent action be to acquire and train with firearms of appropriate roles (12g pump/autoloader, pistols, long rifle with scope, knives, phased plasma rifle in 40W range, etc)?

Posted by: EC at January 27, 2011 11:24 AM (mAhn3)

+1 

Going to all the trouble to stockpile your survival supplies without having the means to protect and defend it from predators - both the four-legged and two-legged variety - doesn't make that much sense.  I'm not a survivalist or prepper, though, so make of that what you will. 

17

Samulsons a hack, he ignores the $2.5 Trillion in surplus the boomers paid in and he uses the misleading meme that most people will draw more out than THEY paid in. He's right about that but he also ignores the matching funds the the employees employer paid in on THEIR behalf.

In my own case according to the letters SS sends me annually by the time I retire at 67 both I and my employer (or just I for the years I was self employed) will have paid in around $300,000. SS also informs me that if I keep paying in what I am paying in now until 67 my benefits will be around $20,000 per year. That means what I and my employer paid in would last me until I was 83 years old. Average life expectency is 76. On average people my age will have paid in 7 years more benefits than they will draw out.

18 Didn't Obamacare take the first step toward dealing with "the old people problem"?

19 A complete and utter collapse will do wonders to any government program.
Posted by: EC
-------
So.  You are hoping for a complete and utter collapse of society?  Is that what you're saying?  If so, I hope you took a look at Fritz's preparedness list.

20

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 27, 2011 11:22 AM (8y9MW)

I aggree that the Ponzi schemes have to go... and sadly they could have.

Could you imagine if the Soc Sec trust fund, which is still very very large, had been INVESTED in companies, instead of put into Bonds and then spent by the Government?  The US investment pool would be much larger than now.

Heck, Soc Sec Admin could own HUNDREDS of Nuclear plants, driving down Electricity costs nationwide... and producing REAL wealth... not just fake interest which gets killed by inflation...

But of course, its too late for that....

As to growth... yes the Economy is cyclic, but its often cyclic due to our own Government screwing it up.  This downturn was pretty much caused by the Government meddling with the Free market... So it would be interesting to "test" an economy in an environment where the Govenment did not meddle, and see if growth was more sustainable.

21

Even after the collapse begins do you think politicians will do anything about it?

Will Democrats and Republicans get together and say , " we have no other option?"

Think about it this way, has there ever been a point in American history where we all unified on something?

I just don't see it happening. Politicians are politicians. I'm willing to bet there are a decent amount of them who wouldn't lift a hand if our government defaulted in the hopes that it would give them a upperhand in being elected in the post default government.

I just don't see this problem being solved. I still see every example of solving this problem ending with the phrase, "And then a miracle happens.."

22

Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 11:32 AM (hVDig)

And thats not including the Growth that Capital would have if it had been invested, vice spent.

23 You can't do away with Medicare.  Politically, it is impossible.  So, they need to get on to fixing it as best they can before we waste even more billions.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 27, 2011 11:26 AM (f9c2L)

Same is true with Social Security and SCHIP.  I'm not talking about political possibilities.  I'm talking about what reality is going to require if we're going to avoid a catastrophic collapse to make 2008-09 look like the halcyon days of yore.

24 Think about it this way, has there ever been a point in American history where we all unified on something?

WWII. But only after Pearl Harbor. FDR had run in 1940 on a specific campaign of keeping us out of the war.

Oh, and there was some unity on foreign policy after 9/11. When the Democrat strategy failed in the 2002 elections, obviously, they began their decent into trooferism.

25

Hi, all!

This is OT, but I was just cruising the archive of recent Newsbusters articles and this one had me cracking up.   I'm not a Huckabee fan, but this was too funny not to share:

Mike Huckabee Demonstrates How Politically Correct, Violent Rhetoric-Free Speech Works

Here's a sample:

MIKE HUCKABEE, HOST: Fox News prides itself on being fair and balanced. But in keeping with the new tenderness of speech, I want my show to go even further. I want us to be so fair as to be unfair. I want us to be so balanced as to be unbalanced. That way we can deliver deeper and more absolutely politically-correct approach to bringing insights to you. So, in keeping with that, my comments will now be carefully screened by Dr. Rube Churl, whoÂ’s the renowned Professor of Rhetoric at Puerile University. HeÂ’s going to be listening to my comments, and if I say something that is not in keeping with the new standards of political speech, he will sound this buzzer [Buzzer], then he will suggest an alternative word or phrase. So, are you ready, Dr. Churl?

DR. RUBE CHURL: Yes, please proceed.

HUCKABEE: Thank you very much. Well, this week, the House dropped a bombshell --

[Buzzer]

CHURL: The word "bombshell" implies war and violence. Try using a significant incendiary device...

26 So.  You are hoping for a complete and utter collapse of society?  Is that what you're saying?  If so, I hope you took a look at Fritz's preparedness list.

Just observing what is going on in DC leads me to believe that we are well on the path to complete and utter collapse in the very near future.  Ofcourse, I don't want that to happen nor am I hoping it will.  But...I sense that no one up in DC, who have to power to effect the changes need to stave off collapse, wants to do actually do it.

27 "But this budget category covers only a sixth of federal spending, and squeezing it harshly would penalize many vital government functions (research, transportation, the FBI)."

A lot of what the FBI's work does not involve vital government functions. The same is no doubt true of much that falls into the categories of research and transportation.

Too much stuff is regarded as "vital"; very little of it is. Before long we'll be forced to realize that.

28 I have the solution.  Get your shoes ready.

29 Sorry, poorly edited comment in #28. First sentence should read:
"A lot of the FBI's work does not involve vital government functions."

30 25 Think about it this way, has there ever been a point in American history where we all unified on something?

WWII. But only after Pearl Harbor. FDR had run in 1940 on a specific campaign of keeping us out of the war.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 27, 2011 11:39 AM (bgcml)

Actualy, there were Protests when we also declared war on Germany... so even the "Greatest Generation" was not so monolithic as people want to remember.

31 Ben, USA out of EVERYWHERE!!!!  Isolationism baby.  It's coming.

32 In my own case according to the letters SS sends me annually

The ones I get tell me I'm worth more dead (in the form of payouts to a spouse or child) than alive.

33

If we want a return on whatever money we contribute to SocSec, then it's gotta be invested in the private sector somehow. I wish we could do the impossible and separate partisan "trade-offs" and politics in general from economics. With all that cash flowing in from every worker in the country, there's gotta be a way to make it work in our favor.

 

34 This suggests an immediate first step, then.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 27, 2011 11:40 AM (lT0LC)

Breitbart has been working on it - but his project is a long term one to put it mildly. What is your suggestion?

35

Posted by: EC at January 27, 2011 11:39 AM (mAhn3)

Yeah.... I often feel like Cassandra... and King Obama  Priam just won't listen...

36 Why would the hard decisions be made? Have they ever been made by any group in power?

37

Ben, USA out of EVERYWHERE!!!!  Isolationism baby.  It's coming.

I don't want us out of everywhere.  Just Europe. There is no point being there anymore.

We need to focus on Asia as that is where the future lies.

 I'm not for isolationism, however I am also not for having an American military base in almost every nation in the world.

Besides. The Europeans are rich, let them pay for their own security. I am sick of subsidizing them, only to have them spit in our faces.

38 Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 11:32 AM (hVDig)

But, you see, that's a lie (the government, not you).  Here: using you're numbers, I'll show you what I mean

If you had $300,000 in a fixed annuity account, making roughly 8% at retirement, you'd make $24,000 in interest each year.  That would be 24,000 a year (instead of 20K) without ever touching the principle.  That wouldn't pay your way, but it would help make any retirement you'd already funded much more enjoyable.

However, with the government, they're, instead saying they'll pay you 6.667% each year.  That's better than a CD or Savings Account, but it's by no means phenomenal.  In either case, it should never touch your principle.

But they have ADMITTED that it is a problem that you'll take out more than was put in on your behalf.  For that to be true, over the presumed 7 years of your retirement (67 to the average life expectancy of 74), they would have to be raiding that money for nearly 43,000/yr (over twice what you'd be getting).

See the problem?  Either they already stole from you (they did) and they're lying about money being in an account for you, or they'll be stealing from you when you retire. 

It's not fair.  It's not right.  But the money is already gone.  All the "I paid in!" in the world won't change the fact the money isn't there.  So that 20k/yr they're promising you is a number pulled from thin-air that they'll stick to the tax-payer when you retire.

39 Ah, I love it when a plan comes together.

40

Think about it this way, has there ever been a point in American history where we all unified on something?

WWII. But only after Pearl Harbor. FDR had run in 1940 on a specific campaign of keeping us out of the war.

that's not entirely accurate. There were politicians and large groups of American's who didn't want us there. I know the "America First" movement lost luster after December 7th, but there were large chunks of americans who wanted nothing to do with the war and politicians who still opposed the war.

 

Also, even in the revolutionary war, the general public wasn't for the war

41 Ben - Word.

42 I think I heard something about running out of other peoples money or something.

43 See the problem?  Either they already stole from you (they did) and they're lying about money being in an account for you, or they'll be stealing from you when you retire. 

It's not fair.  It's not right.  But the money is already gone.  All the "I paid in!" in the world won't change the fact the money isn't there.  So that 20k/yr they're promising you is a number pulled from thin-air that they'll stick to the tax-payer when you retire.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 27, 2011 11:47 AM (8y9MW)

You seem to be pretty selective on which obligations you are willing to let the government default on. If that's the game let's just default on the $14 Trillion in Treasury Bonds? That money is already gone right?

44 Here's what - if you start saving early and often for retirement (or any other purpose) but especially in a tax-protected account, your kitty grows to far exceed your contributions, even at modest rated of compounding interest. Money removed as payroll taxes from your paycheck had BETTER be returned several timed over, or you are being cheated out of what you could have achieved for yourself with your own prudence.

45

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 27, 2011 11:47 AM (8y9MW)

Yeah... the really fun part is that the "Trust Fund" excess money has been "invested" in US Treasury bonds... at an interest rate controlled by the Fed Board.

Thus the money taken from us, has been used to PROFIT a Private Bank... and interestingly enough??? Timing wise? Fed Reserve Bank, then 20 years later, Soc Sec... which created a constant stream of Capital into that Bank...

This is worse than a Ponzi scheme...

46 I have to step off that cliff or children will die!!

Posted by: George Orwell speaking for all politicians and 52% of the nation at January 27, 2011 11:20 AM (AZGON)

Oh, no. He used the last 12 Watts in his Hoveround.

47

Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 11:51 AM (hVDig)

Uh... the "Trust Fund" owns a lot of those Treausry Bonds.... more than China...

48 Ben, I don't advocate isolationism, but it is one its way...some degree of it.  I do agree that we should get the hell out of Europe.  Frankly, I don't think we should have military bases anywhere outside our own borders.  Or, at the very least, if we have a base in "X" country we should allow "X" country to set up a base inside our boders.  THAT ain't gonna happen.  But you catch my drift?

49

- Domestically, The Piper is pounding on our door and I think he wants to discuss payment or something.

- European states that have existed centuries longer than we are showing signs of collapse.

- Russia is becoming an overt dictatorship.

- Arab countries are on the verge of collapse to possible Islamicist insurgencies.

- Worldwide energy prices are going to skyrocket.

- The world's largest economy is in hopless debt and the second largest is built upon a fairytale

Storm's comin'.  Big one. 

(Cue Kratos)

50

SCHIP needs to go.  It is a Gateway Social Program.  The Marijuana of Welfare.

51 Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 11:51 AM (hVDig)

Go ahead, default on them, too.  I'm in the camp that says the sooner the collapse comes, the less painful it will be.

52 Oops, forgot increasing food prices to my list.

53 For that to be true, over the presumed 7 years of your retirement (67 to the average life expectancy of 74), they would have to be raiding that money for nearly 43,000/yr (over twice what you'd be getting).

It's actually worse than that.  You can't use average life expectancy for a retiree, since the average includes infant mortality and teenagers with poor decision making skills.  If you are already 67, your life expectancy is close to 90.  It's not 7 years of retirement, it's 20+.

54

"Or, at the very least, if we have a base in "X" country we should allow "X" country to set up a base inside our boders.  "

 

Huh? It's not about being "fair", it's about who can help defend who. It's also about what we want to do, not just serving the interests of the countries we're stationed in.  A lot of Americans died for those bases in Germany.

55

Uh... the "Trust Fund" owns a lot of those Treausry Bonds.... more than China...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 27, 2011 11:56 AM (AdK6a)

Unfortunatley that is not true. The trust fund consists of IOU's not treasurey bonds. It amounts to another $2.5 Trillion in debt that is conveniantly off the books.

56 It's actually worse than that.

Clarification: by worse, I mean better.  The payout is worse for the program, country and taxpayer, but better for the SS recipient.

57 Lincoln, wasn't suggesting being fair.  I was pointing out the logic (financial, cultural, national interest, etc) of us having a base in another country.  Sure, Americans died fighting WWI & II, but sooner or later we have to stop spending money protection the damned Europeans....or any other country for that matter (except Israel, if they ask).

58

I once listened to a radio show where an economist said that if you saved just 10% of your paycheck ($300/wk = $30), and put it into low risk investments, you would be a Millionaire when you retired at age 60. 

Considering that for most middle income people it will take you at least 7.5 years to just break even on Social Security, that means you better plan on living until you are 73 to start benefiting from that investment (which is really a tax that redistributes wealth).

Now, we are facing telling seniors "Hey, we lied to you for 75 years, but those are the breaks." 

Allow anyone who is under the age of 50 to take their money out of the fund without any interest payments included.  Allow those under 50 to opt out of the system now.  Force the government to continue with promises to those over 50 (an age where it is really too late to start planning for retirement).  Cut the budget by the amount of promised payments to fulfill the promise to those over 50 but phase the system out.

Social Security is unsustainable and must be sunsetted. 

59

One big problem is that the money we've all paid into Social Security all our working lives for our retirement has been stolen by politicians.  It was supposed to be an untouchable "lockbox".

If the federal government didn't owe us back the money it stole, we would be in much better shape.  Never trust the government to look out for your interests.

 

60 Unfortunatley that is not true. The trust fund consists of IOU's not treasurey bonds. The "IOU's" are special-purpose (and non-negotiable) instruments that are redeemable only by the US Treasury. But since the Treasury is broke, they redeem the IOU's by...selling bonds. So it's nothing more than a window-dressing trick. There is no "lockbox" or "trust fund". It's all being financed by bond debt, one way or the other.

61 Social Security is unsustainable and must be sunsetted. This was obvious 20 years ago, and had they done it then, we wouldn't be in the crack we're in right now. The problem is that the big "Boomer wave" is gathering steam, and these people are pretty much committed to the system we have in place. So it's either tell them, "Sorry, you got screwed; we have to reduce your benefits"; or tell everyone else, "Sorry, you got screwed; we have to jack up your payments even though you'll never see a dime when you get old". The question now isn't whether someone is going to get screwed; the question is who is going to get screwed.

62 Fritz, I see that your survival checklist does not include any means of self-defense.

I consider that a matter of personal choice and conscience. I've lived through a number of natural disasters, as well as at least one major period of underemployment (capped off by the 1989 Loma Prieta quake), and have never had or observed in the area around me need for armed self-defense in those circumstances. On the other hand, I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and went through NRA gun safety training when I was in junior high. I don't own a gun currently, but that could change.

Contrary to popular belief (including within the LDS Church membership), the LDS (Mormon) emphasis on home preparedness and storage did not rise from a pre-apocalyptic mindset; instead, it was intended as an economic safety cushion. Brigham Young, all the way back in the 1860s or so, chastised the Mormon settlers in Utah for selling their excess grain to buy luxuries, telling them that instead they should keep a year's supply of grain on hand in case of crop failure or a return of those pesky crickets.

The LDS Church revived that concept of each family having a year's supply of food and other essentials in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression. Most recently, the LDS Church has scaled back that recommendation to a 3-months supply, largely in recognition of urban living, greater need for mobility, and anti-hording laws in other countries.

63

Unfortunatley that is not true. The trust fund consists of IOU's not treasurey bonds. It amounts to another $2.5 Trillion in debt that is conveniantly off the books.

Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 12:07 PM (hVDig)

Hmmm.... isn't an Interest bearing Financial Document (IOU), a Bond?

And are these not issued by the Treasury?

They were not available to the public, but a Bond by any other name??? (Bond, James  Treasury Bond).

64 Fuck that idiot, besides that we don't need back to back posting for the same "life expectancy" myth.

65 I consider that a matter of personal choice and conscience. I've lived through a number of natural disasters, as well as at least one major period of underemployment (capped off by the 1989 Loma Prieta quake), and have never had or observed in the area around me need for armed self-defense in those circumstances. On the other hand, I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and went through NRA gun safety training when I was in junior high. I don't own a gun currently, but that could change.

I understand and happy to hear that you live in an area where things don't go Mad Max 2 when something bad happens.  It's all about preparedness.

66 Check the Constitution, Bob - research and transportation are not "vital" areas of federal government - they are activities in which the federal government has no business.

67 ...the Administration, Congress, and the states will all finally have to make painful across-the-board cuts in everything,...

Haaahahahahhaaaaa, hahhahhahaaaa, hahahaa...

68 Here's a simple 4 step plan for solving the elder-care spending problem.

1. Increase immigration. Amnesty for everybody (except white people). Refugee status for everybody that ever got called a mean name. More hispanics, more Africans, more muslims, more Indians, more Chinese, more everybody (again, except white people).

2. Increase propaganda about how white people are all racists and bigots and how white people colonized the planet and raped the earth and are the source of all evil in the universe.

3. Repeat Steps #1 and #2 until non-whites are a majority of the voters and the young and they hate all those old, racist, evil white people with a burning hot passion.

4. At this stage slashing Social Security and Medicare spending for the old (ie white, wink, wink) will be easy. Why should a non-white country pay for the comfy retirement of their former slavemasters anway?


I think with a couple well-timed amnesties and some good race-baiting propaganda we could gin up a majority coalition to fuck over all the old white people by 2025-30. Obama's off to a good start by transforming the Democratic Party into the official Fuck Whitey party. Just think what progress we can make on more and better ways to Fuck Whitey by 2030! And with an angry majority of resentful non-whites there'll be no limits to how much we can Fuck Whitey. Diversity is Strength!!11!!

69 We don't even know all the things the Federal Gov't does.  How about a House of Rep project to list all the activities and their budget amounts under each constitutionally enumerated power with an uncategorized column labeled WTF for Win The Future.  Oops, I mean What The Fuck? 

70 Could you imagine if the Soc Sec trust fund, which is still very very large, had been INVESTED in companies,

How do you say HELLO in Italian.

71

" The money's just not there".

If it's there for the unions and public worker pensions, it's there for me, baby.

Some people act like it's the fault of seniors that their government lied and stole their money.

It's like Willie Sutton saying, "Hey, I already spent the frackin money I stole from you, so get the hell out of here."

But I have to admit, that seems to be what the Obamanoid thugocracy is saying.

72

"and squeezing it harshly would penalize many vital government functions (research, transportation, the FBI)."

"vital"?  Squeeze first, establish vitality later.

73 62 If that's the game let's just default on the $14 Trillion in Treasury Bonds? That money is already gone right?

Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2011 11:51 AM (hVDig)

If we were smart, we would.  Protecting the integrity and utility of the dollar is one of the most important priorities our federal government has.  Monetizing the debt is a path straight to hell - real hell - from which there will not be any escape (as the US dollar is unlike any currency that has ever existed, without any possible replacement or substitute and unable to be bailed out by anyone).  Then, Americans will understand the real and substantive difference between someone who is nothing but American and dual citizens.

---

How does defaulting on the debt protect the integrity and utility of the dollar?  Serious question, not snark.

74 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - zayıflama hapı - ozon yağı