Your average Democrat

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1181 - 1200 of total 1241 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 03:11pm PT
In case my last post got buried on the last page, there's also this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/27/1086996/-Busting-Myths-about-the-2012-Social-Security-and-Medicare-Trustees-Report#

No doubt you’ve already seen the screaming headlines promising the immediate bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare…it’s an annual Washington tradition tied to the release of the Social Security and Medicare Trustees report. Unfortunately, this tradition seldom stems from factual reporting of what’s actually in the trustees report. This year is no exception.

To help you sort fact from fiction about the true health of Social Security and Medicare, here is our President/CEO Max Richtman’s reaction to the Trustees’ projections and some data you likely won’t see reported in this week’s news coverage:

“Projections in the 2012 Trustees Reports come as no surprise to anyone who understands how Social Security and Medicare work. The trust fund solvency date for Social Security has seen fluctuations many times in recent decades, from a depletion date as distant as 2048 in the 1988 report to as soon as 2029 in the 1994 and 1997 reports. This year’s report is well within that range. Contrary to the crisis myths perpetuated by fiscal conservatives and many in the media, the prevailing facts show once again that Social Security remains among the nation’s most successful and stable programs. The Trustees report there is now $2.7 trillion in the Social Security trust fund, which is $69 billion more than last year, and continues to grow. Payroll contributions and interest will fully cover benefits for decades to come.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

**In the 2012 Trustees report:

-Trustees project Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the year 2033. After that, Social Security will have sufficient revenue to pay about 75% of benefits.

-Social Security is still well funded. In 2012, with the economy showing slow signs of recovery, Social Security’s total income still exceeded its expenses by over $57 billion. In fact, the Trustees estimate that total annual income is expected to exceed program obligations until 2020.

-Beneficiaries will likely see a Cost of Living Allowance increase of 1.8% in 2013.
The 2012 Trustees report also shows Medicare’s Trust Fund solvency projection remains unchanged at 2024. This reflects the success that health care reform has had in improving Medicare’s solvency. If long-term solvency for Medicare is truly Congress’ goal, then repealing health care reform is not an option as it would set back that progress immeasurably.

The 2012 Trustees report also shows Medicare’s Trust Fund solvency projection remains unchanged at 2024. This reflects the success that health care reform has had in improving Medicare’s solvency. If long-term solvency for Medicare is truly Congress’ goal, then repealing health care reform is not an option as it would set back that progress immeasurably.**

“The challenges facing Medicare are the same that we see in the broader health care system…the high cost of health care in America. Thanks to health care reform, Medicare will save $200 billion by 2016, but even those savings would be lost if opponents have their way and the Affordable Care Act is repealed. We must allow reform to be fully implemented in order to realize the projected savings.” Max Richtman
The National Committee believes that Congress can also improve the long-term outlook for Social Security with modest and manageable changes in revenue without enacting harmful benefit cuts for current or future retirees. Recent polling has shown that a majority of Americans support lifting the payroll tax cap to ensure Americans contribute at all income levels.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:06pm PT
So what do you do in 2033 when it can only pay 75% of promised benefits? That's only 21 years away, which doesn't seem very far given that I'm almost 40 years past my college graduation. If I send my creditors 75% of what I owe, it won't turn out too well for me.

I never said Social Security or Medicare was imminently insolvent. What I say, and to my knowledge has not been contradicted, is that we can fix the actuarial insolvency now without horribly painful changes. Fixing it later is an entirely different matter.

Please note, though, Karl, that the Daily Kos article doesn't really address Medicare, which is the first, and much larger, part of the entitlement actuarial insolvency problem. It proposes paying less to providers and suppliers (the reference to the ACA), but doesn't address how much less it would really have to pay to be solvent.

John

Edit:

The article makes it sound like the discussion is largely from the Trustees' report. It is, in fact, from NCPSSM, whose "official" dailykos profile is below:

Real Name: NCPSSM

Location: Washington, DC, 22003

Occupation: Advocacy Organization [emphasis added]

Groups: Social Security Defenders, Preserve Social Security & Medicare
Eric Beck

Sport climber
Bishop, California
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
For me, the cliff discussion has taken on an air of profound unreality with the total lack of mention of the F35 program and its projected $1 Trillion cost.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/f-35-fighter-more-dangerous-to-governments-than-any-potential-enemy/article6299878/

An excerpt:
But Canada’s ongoing F-35 drama is but the tip of the F-35 iceberg. The United States still plans to purchase 2,443 of the aircraft at a total cost (purchase and operations) of well over a trillion dollars. But virtually all of the nations that have signed on to the F-35 consortium are seriously questioning their commitment to the jet. And there is furious debate and much unhappiness in Washington over the F-35’s costs and production delays.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
But in 2011, it was revealed that only 50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and that it would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule.[72] The total estimated lines of code for the entire program (onboard and offboard) had grown from 15 million lines to 24 million lines by 2012
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:16pm PT
You see John, that Trillion for the lame useless fighter than even generals from the military don't say they want would cover a great deal toward medicare and social security. Just a little sacrifice of our imperialism is needed, not painful horrible costs

The military industrial complex and their paid political stooges have foisted this false choice on us. We should have war on them

not to mention the 700 billion we're planning to spend on Nukes we don't need during the next 10 years. To hell with people who value being able to blow up the world 10x instead of 5x over at the expense of the old and poor

Peace


Karl

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/opinion/gard-johns-military-spending/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

John M

climber
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:18pm PT
I never said Social Security or Medicare was imminently insolvent. What I say, and to my knowledge has not been contradicted, is that we can fix the actuarial insolvency now without horribly painful changes. Fixing it later is an entirely different matter.

Agreed.. but how

The problem as I see it is that a number of powerful people in the GOP wanted to privatize social security and others it appear to me want to do away with it entirely. So what do we do? I don't' really see the Dems coming up with good answers either. ( except maybe to reduce the military, which I agree with but don't' want a fast draw down. )

By the way.. I deleted the post about what you said about TGT. I still think that it is true. I wish that you would take your blinders off. If I posted that "your" side of the argument only posted nasty things and Dr. F. only posted reasonable arguments, you would cringe. I feel the same way about TGT. I see more hateful things come out of him then reasonable arguments.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:19pm PT
Social Security has tons of money. The government has just been borrowing from it and needs to pay it back.

Exactly, Karl. When you place money at interest, you are loaning it to the party paying interest. Whether we loaned it to the government (usually considered the safest investment) or to private parties, we're still loaning it. Otherwise, we're just putting it under the mattress, which is almost always a poor investment.

The problem comes because the government does need to pay it back. When it does, it affects the cash flow negatively. According to the (self-interested) NCPSSM report you quoted, we will need to start doing this for Social Security in about eight years, and big time for Medicare perhaps sooner. There is only one source for the payment of those funds: federal revenues.

Thus, when NCPSSM says Social Security has "plenty of money," what they really mean is that they can appropriate a larger and larger share of federal revenues starting in 2020. Where is that going to come from.

For the life of me, I can't see how NCPSSM, AARP, and the other insolvency deniers can purport to want to preserve Social Security and Medicare by denying financial facts, or how otherwise responsible (but, apparently, financially ignorant) news organizations let them get away with it. I'm not trying to destroy these programs, I'm trying to save them, not only now, but in the future. NCPSSM and AARP don't give a rip about the future. They want it unchanged now, and let the problems get fixed when they're all dead.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:25pm PT
Agreed.. but how

My preferred way would be to gradually raise eligibility ages to reflect current demographic reality, rather than 1930's demographic reality.

I think this would be less contractionary (if it is contractionary at all) than raising payroll taxes, and would be more in keeping with the original intent of the programs, namely to provide for necessities for people after they can no longer work.

I don't like means testing, particularly for Social Security, because of the moral hazard issue Dave Kos has so accurately described on the thread involving the Republicans. Nonetheless, if some means testing is necessary to reach a political compromise that actually gets passed, I'd rather have that than a stalemate. Politics is (or at least should be), after all, the art of the possible. leaving the current system unchanged simply guarantees the demise of both programs.

As a suggested bumper sticker of one of my friends says, "Warning: dates on calendar are closer than they appear."

John

Edit: Eric and Karl, I agree that there's plenty of platinum-plated military expense that we can't afford, not the least of which is where we send our troops. That isn't the only conservative favorite I would reduce substantially. In my opinion, our drug laws -- with their ridiculously long sentences (and ridiculously longs sentences generally) are a luxury we can't afford, and are actually counter-productive.

I could go on, but it's increasingly clear that a majority of Americans -- of all political persuasions -- prefer the buy now, pay later (preferably after I'm dead) plan to confronting our financial issues realistically.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
Edit: Eric and Karl, I agree that there's plenty of platinum-plated military expense that we can't afford, not the least of which is where we send our troops. That isn't the only conservative favorite I would reduce substantially. In my opinion, our drug laws -- with their ridiculously long sentences (and ridiculously longs sentences generally) are a luxury we can't afford, and are actually counter-productive.

Agreed, and when we consider REAL cuts to the military and the prison industrial complex, it's enough to save medicare and social security if we go back to Clinton era taxes

Easy!

But our government is purchased by them both

Peace

Karl
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 13, 2012 - 07:00pm PT
Looks like John Kerry might be the next Sec of state instead of Rice.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rice-out-secretary-state/2012/12/13/id/467684
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 13, 2012 - 08:44pm PT
John: ... but the biggest spending issues remain Medicare, Social Security and the increased costs inherent in the ACA.

John, hey, that (edit: fourth) spike in the deficit chart I posted above didn't come from any of those things. And those things, minus ACA, were all in play during Clinton era surpluses. It just doesn't wash or compute in any way.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 13, 2012 - 08:46pm PT
Yet another example of lefty racism.

froodish

Social climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
My preferred way would be to gradually raise eligibility ages to reflect current demographic reality, rather than 1930's demographic reality.

This is a really bad idea. The folks who will need to rely upon Social Security the most (the bottom income quintiles) have not made much in the way of life expectancy gains in the last 40 years.

A modest raising of the income contribution cap would probably handle things just fine and not leave the most vulnerable with a gap between the age at which they can no longer effectively work and when they are eligible for SS.

Social Security funding is a easily solved issue and it's disingenuous to throw it into the same mix as Medicare.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:08pm PT
And then there is the average Republican: white, male, bigoted.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:22pm PT
And then there is the average Republican: white, male, bigoted.
plus:
stupid, wrong, factually challenged, duped, brainwashed, partisan, biased, red neck, uneducated, racist.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:31pm PT
We went over the fiscal cliff when Junior suckered us into 2 wars , gave the well off a tax cut that they didn't need , and handed the bill to the middle class...here's to looking back up at the top of the cliff at the moron republican saboteurs who insist on stealing the America Dream...Go big R ! ...RJ
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
ok,,, Hillary having a "concussion" and now she cant testify....Really??

Goooood gaaarrrriiiieeeffff!
survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
I like how TGT's video was removed because of youtubes policy against "Spam, Scams and commercially deceptive content."
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:57pm PT
Ron, have you read the new report just released by the independent Accountability Review Board?

Now, will you please stop posting nonsense about the Benghazi attack? Like, it's no conspiracy, OK?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 19, 2012 - 02:22pm PT


Yes ive seen the massive buck passer eerrr i mean report.

But it strikes me odd that your next candidate for president cant testify because she has a "concussion".. paaalease....

Boxers can do it but she cant??
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2012 - 10:36am PT
Speaking of amendments, according to this journalist, looks like the unwarranted infinite detention (ie, lock you up with no trial) may be next before they work on screwing up the 2nd (gun ownership).

"What everyone must understand is that American politics doesn't work the way you'd think it would. Most people presume that government officials would never willfully withhold penicillin from men with syphilis just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated. It seems unlikely that officers would coerce enlisted men into exposing themselves to debilitating nerve gas. Few expected that President Obama would preside over the persecution of an NSA whistle-blower, or presume the guilt of all military-aged males killed by U.S. drone strikes. But it all happened.

Really thinking about all that may make it easier to believe what I'm about to tell you.

It may seem like imprisoning an American citizen without charges or trial transgresses against the United States Constitution and basic norms of Western justice dating back to the Magna Carta.

It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would be uncontroversial.

It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat the issue with at least as much urgency as "the fiscal cliff" or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for Cabinet posts.

It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention.

But it isn't so.

The casual news consumer cannot rely on those seemingly reasonable heuristics to signal that very old norms are giving way, that important protections are being undermined, perhaps decisively.

We've lost the courage of our convictions -- we're that scared of terrorism (or of seeming soft on it).

News junkies likely know that I'm alluding to a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to allay these concerns with an amendment:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

You'd think the part about American citizens being protected from indefinite detention would be uncontroversial. It wasn't. But the amendment did manage to pass in the United States Senate.

Afterward everyone forgot about it pretty quickly. But not Charlie Savage. He's a journalist at The New York Times. If every journalist were more like him the United States government would be far less able to radically expand the president's unchecked authority without many people noticing.

Here is his scoop:

Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.

Says Adam Serwer, another journalist who treats these issues with the urgency that they deserve:

Of the four main negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the practice. Both of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty.

There is a complication, as he notes: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States. While I respect that principled stand, the more important thing is that this outcome puts us all at greater risk of having a core liberty violated, and that Senators McCain, Levin, and many other legislators suffer no consequences for failing to protect and defend the United States Constitution.

As Serwer puts it, "The demise of the Feinstein-Lee proposal doesn't necessarily mean that Americans suspected of terrorism in the US can be locked up forever without a trial. But it ensures that the next time a president tries to lock up an American citizen without trial -- as President George W. Bush previously tried -- it will be left up to the courts to decide whether or not it's legal."

Don't let the dearth of attention fool you -- this is a scandal. Congress has turned its back on safeguarding a core Constitutional protection and a centuries old requirement of Western justice.

Rage, rage against the dying of the 5th."

Story here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/
Messages 1181 - 1200 of total 1241 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews