When some one says SS or MC will go broke

[safeinOhio]

in 20whatever at the current rate of spending, please ask them what year the military will go broke at the current rate of spending.

just asking

[Proud Corporate Dem]

1. Sorry but there is really no comparison. Defense is funded out of general revenues.

Those programs are funded out of special trust funds. Eventually they will go broke.

[safeinOhio]

2. I think after the 80s those funds

have been used to balance those general revenues. Lots of IOUs to the trust that mean nothing.

[liberal N proud]

3. That is why the funds are going broke!

[Yo_Mama]

81. No it isn't

It is possible that we wouldn't have the ability to pay SS, DI etc because foreigners stop lending us the money, but when people talk about the funds going broke they ignore that possibility. Under current law, DI & SS trust funds will be exhausted in 2033 (latest estimate), after which benefits will be cut.

Edited to add link:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
...
DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.

[girl gone mad]

84. No, we are not dependent on foreign lending.

The USA is a sovereign currency government. We have absolutely no need to "borrow" our own fiat currency.

We can always meet dollar-denominated debt obligations, including SS and DI, even if the trust fund is exhausted. The only problem might be if we were at full employment and full productive capacity, which is so unlikely that it's not even worth discussing.

There is absolutely no crisis.

[Yo_Mama]

89. This is a different issue

From the question of what we mean when we say the trust funds are going broke. Under current law, once the trust funds are exhausted benefits to beneficiaries are automatically cut.

For example, without a law change, sometime in 2016 disability payments will be cut because that is when the DI fund will be exhausted.

Now as to the separate point you are making, the fact is that if you simply print more money instead of borrowing it, you will cut benefits through inflation. When a country has a massive trade deficit, inflation from printing more money can occur even when there is huge internal slack, because foreign currencies will rise against ours.

And the proof, although you are not capable of grasping this, is that as various central banks have played currency games you can literally see the effect in relative commodity prices:





If we run the value of the dollar down too much, everyone holding dollars will seek to convert them into something else, selling dollars and therefore driving the commodity-value of a dollar down very far, very suddenly. And it is a one way process.

If you really think the economy can withstand oil at $200 a barrel and pasta at $4.00 a pound, then your proposal has merit. Fortunately, even our government is wise enough to know it can't play this game.

[liberal N proud]

86. Actually, there is a surplus due to illegals who work but never draw SS.

Then there are those who pay all their life and die prematurely.

It is going broke because congress "borrowed" from the fund repeatedly and have never paid it back.

[Yo_Mama]

87. You're entirely wrong

Trust fund accounting ignores the fact that the payments into the fund were used to pay benefits.

And we have made deals for many undocumented aliens that will eventually qualify them for SS.

Read the link.

[liberal N proud]

93. Here is a link for you...

Summary: In January 2010, 52.7 million people, or about one in every six U.S. residents, received Social Security benefits. The benefits are financed by dedicated taxes on earnings paid by workers and employers, by income taxes that upper income beneficiaries pay on part of their Social Security benefits, and by interest earned on accumulated trust fund reserves. According to the 2010 Trustees report, the Social Security trust funds will have an annual surplus of $77 billion in 2010. Annual surpluses are projected to continue for the next 15 years (2010-24) and reserves are projected to grow to $4.2 Trillion by the end of 2024. Beginning in 2025, reserves will start to be drawn down to pay benefits. In 2037, the reserves are projected to be depleted. At that time, tax income coming into the trust funds will cover about 78 percent of benefits due, according to the 2010 report of the Social Security Trustees.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/social-security-has-annual-77-billion-surplus

[doccraig67]

91. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States

Just the same as our debt to China is.

[JDPriestly]

77. The tax cuts for the rich have been funded from those IOUs as have the military

expenditures in recent years. So, yes. If we vote for Obama, and if he really keeps his promises to raise taxes on the rich, we will see that money return to the treasury as we need it.

It depends on how we vote. Are you helping out with the Obama campaign? That is what we can do to make sure that Trust Fund money is repaid.

[geckosfeet]

4. Ha ha ha. That's funny. Did you actually miss the point or are you just being obtuse?

Unlimited tax dollars for military apparatus - we run out of money to help the people.

Duh


It's about priorities.

[Scuba]

5. It's a perfect comparison. Both are funded by tax dollars.

We can afford what we want to afford. This Country has plenty of money.

But riddle me this: If we can't afford to educate our children, heal our sick or care for our elderly, just what is it that the defense budget is defending?

[5X]

6. Now THAT is the million dollar question. n/t

[marble falls]

10. Go to the head of the class. Best question ever.

[LittleGirl]

12. Brilliant.

That is my question to anyone that says we can't feed the poor and fund universal health care and create public transportation the envy of the world.

[raouldukelives]

15. Corporations.

Our military has become the enforcement arm of Wall Streets wishes and every investor in it is part of the push towards more of the same. One small extra voice in the rush to take every last nickel out of the earth by force before it collapses on itself.
But, some people love corporations & Wall St so to them its a noble cause and our God given right as Americans to use it up, keep the profits and leave a rotted husk for tomorrows kids to wonder over.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

18. We are doing all those things.

But defense spending is not optional.

Remember we have to feed the defense industry or they will not support us.

We depend on them to be able to compete in several states and congressional districts.

[Dragonfli]

20. I must have this wrong, are you implying that we need to hyper-fund the MIC to buy votes?

Perhaps we can spend merely twice as much as the next largest militarized country, do you think that will PURCHASE enough votes?

Or should we spend even more on death to win that oh so reliable "on the fence and almost ready to vote Democratic" Republican voter?

[Proud Corporate Dem]

21. Not exactly.

I do not think that will be enough.

It is not as much about securing voters. We can not afford to alienate the donors.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[tama]

26. LOL

It's the "donors" that we can't afford.

[Dragonfli]

27. Then it is too late to "win" anything, if they own us so completely, our party is theirs

not ours, and certainly not a party looking after the best interests of the country, we become nothing more than a bag man that delivers billions (actually trillions) in cash for unneeded arsenals (and we do it for minimum wage).

How much do these donors give? Millions? Cheap investment when the pay-off is in trillions of the PEOPLES money. That is not winning, that is becoming a cheap prostitute concerned only with servicing a rich client.

Should any party be a mere employee of a special interest when servicing them actually harms the country?

[Proud Corporate Dem]

29. We got the ACA Health Care reform. We got birth control covered by health insurance.

We successfully waged the war on terror to keep America safe from terror.

So don't act like you didn't get anything.

Anyway the other party is actually worse. Those are your realistic choices.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Did 'terror' surrender or something? I must have missed that

news bulletin.

Declaring war on terror is a bit like declaring war on tanks. Doing so may make you feel good and provide an excuse for government spending that would have even Keynes pulling out his hair but not sure there's much 'there there' (to quote Virginia Woolf out of context).

[Proud Corporate Dem]

60. Yes but our operations continue around the world.

In some places like Iraq the military work has been given out to contractors, but it still counts as a victory in my book.

President Obama will probably go down as one of the greatest Presidents in history.

[coalition_unwilling]

69. I keep feeling like I'm missing some sarcasm tags with your comments. The

only 'victor' in Iraq, if there is a victor, is Iran. For all his strengths, Obama cannot count upon 'victory in Iraq' as one of them.

Obama is probably in the top 20% of presidents, but 'one of the greatest'??? Really??? There is no New Deal (FDR), there is no preserving the Union (Lincoln), there is no Israel-Egypt peace treaty (Carter), there is no Louisiana Purchase (Jefferson). So I'm a bit unclear on what you base this 'greatest' label. The ACA? The ARRA?

[Proud Corporate Dem]

76. I actually think privatizing the space program was one of the smartest moves he could have made.

Also privatizing the military operations in Iraq and accelerated offshore oil drilling.

Those decisions really opened a lot of doors for investors to create wealth and create jobs in the private sector.

I really respect him. Not everybody in the Democratic party is a far leftist. We still believe in a free market economy.

[Dragonfli]

90. We got Heritage foundation policy that shovels cash to those that only deny health care

The job of an insurance company is to suck profit and cut loss by denying care to those that need it using any excuse that will fly.

Insurance is not health care, for further reference see the movie "sicko" it is about the bankruptcies and denial of care epidemic among the INSURED. They had much to do with killing my wife Kim, the war on terror is a war on the fourth amendment (and a few others) as far as I can tell, terror is still a tactic used, even now by the US. You can't win a war on a word, only an actual identifiable enemy.

Pol Pot is worse, so lets support the HERITAGE FOUNDATION!! (that is stupid, helpful only to right wing policy junkies and Koch suckers).
You need to belong to a party that shares your right wing views rather than infiltrating mine and bringing your Reagan with you.

Or are you infiltrating out of loyalty to something other than Democratic values, pretending to be one to move Reagan to both sides?
Hard to tell, you third wayers spout the same "values" that 90's Republicans did, so you want what they wanted and it is not something I support, If I wanted to fellate corporations that suck me dry I would join your ideological kindred over at Heritage.

You are a real problem, trojan horse policy fakes are making our party indistinguishable from the House that Newt built.

You are (because you infiltrate and destroy from within) far more dangerous that the honest Republicans that advertise what they are rather than using false advertising to sell the same policies I have fought as a Democrat for over thirty years.

Go back home to the right please.

[Oilwellian]

39. Well, aren't you the cutest thing ever?

Corporate Democrats have such winning ideas! I can't think of a better way for Democrats to strengthen the party! Go corporations!

[Proud Corporate Dem]

43. LOL you may laugh, but remember we can't get anything done if we don't win.

We have to do what it takes to win. Then we can do everything you want, within reason if it is acceptable.

[Oilwellian]

49. You're exactly right!

Winning is absolutely everything! Corporate owned politicians are the answer to all of our problems and such a winning strategy for Democrats!

[Proud Corporate Dem]

57. You make it sound like there is another choice.

It is the only proven winning strategy.

[Oilwellian]

80. Oh, there is another choice we could go with

We could publicly finance campaigns. But then the wealthy couldn't buy our politicians and own government. We would never win if that were to end!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

53. The corporate world and the Progressive movement are anti-thetical to each other

Large corporations are one of the the institutions that needs to go away. We prioritize corporate profits above the health and well-being of the citizenry, and it's got to stop. It's insane, and you're part of the problem NOT part of the solution.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

59. Really?

I have helped raise a good bit of money for Democratic candidates and I know what it takes to work with the donors.

We deal with reality and things that are possible. Not fantasies. Sorry if that inconveniences your movement, but some of us are focused on governing this country. Instead of complaining, how about getting out there and knocking on some doors.

Remember the Republicans are much much worse.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. You make the assumption that I'm not working for the things that matter

As if you and your corporate whore owners are the only ones doing "real work" with your fundraising and glad handing and back room deals. That's so ridiculously backwards that I'm not even going to respond to it.

You can continue to tell yourself that the vast seas of money being injected into politics is a good thing, but it's not. We're a country of indentured servants because of the monied interests (like you and your ilk) that have hijacked the political process, purchasing access and influence without having to suffer any of the consequences of responsible citizen-hood.

Honestly, if the Democratic party has come down to people like you then we're really, really fucked.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

70. I'm not even saying it is a good thing. I'm just saying it is a fact of life.

It's just how it has always been and how it will be for the foreseeable future.

It takes money to run a campaign.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

78. That's the attitude that perpetuates the maintanence of the status-quo

Enjoy your stay here at DU.

[tama]

28. Hmm

That post made me suspect that you are a real lefty posing as a corporate mannekin RW Dem. If I'm right, I bow in admirance to such shrewd trolling.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

30. No it is true. Just ask the members of the Congressinal Drone Caucus.

They understand what it takes to win. Money.
Anything else is naive. And remember if you do not win, you can not accomplish anything.

http://unmannedsystemscaucus.mckeon.house.gov/about/membership.shtml

[tama]

35. Ugly mugs

As long as you keep playing the bipartisan game of winning-losing, you are playing lose-lose game for the society at large and for your own well-being. When you get out of the lose-lose game and start playing just win-win games, you have accomplished a lot.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Defense spending is most certainly 'optional' - it's a shitty option, especially

now that the Cold War has been over for 20+ years, but it's Keynesianism run amok, affirmative action for the privileged.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

56. Except in real life we support or we lose.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. Feeding them and Gorging them are two different things.

[lonestarnot]

41. !

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

58. I agree

When people, no matter their political persuasion, say we are broke I reply we're not. We've just allocated money to different priorities. Like the War Machine.

[HiPointDem]

83. [phone]

[part man all 86]

16. What a dumb statement.

Even 75 years from now funds will be given out around 75% at current rate. So when will it go broke? Not going to happen and with small increase it will be at 100%. I love doomsayers they make the world flat.

[A Simple Game]

22. There are a lot of people on this board that need to learn more about how

SS and MC are funded.

You are not one of them.

I really don't see what the problem is. It's insurance, every other insurance I have has rate increases, why are SS and MC different? Just increase the rates.

Of course MC is a little different, it needs lower cost participants to bring down the average cost. Medicare for all would solve the problem.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

23. "Medicare for All" is not realistic. There is no support for it. It is a radical fringe position.

[A Simple Game]

24. Three strikes! You're out. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

32. And you are Obvious.

FUD is all you got, now go away.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

33. I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is FUD?

[Ikonoklast]

38. Fingers broken?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FUD


Tick, tock.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

40. So you think Medicare for All is realistic in the Untited States?

It's hard to raise money if you run on that.

[Ikonoklast]

46. Straw Man.

Sorry, your opinions are irrelevant.

Medicare for all is economically UNSTOPPABLE.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

47. Hardly irrelevant. It is the view of the vast majority of Congress and the President.

And it will be that way for at least the next 20 years.

Anything else is delusional.

[Ikonoklast]

50. And every single one of those politicians could be replaced inside of six years.

And it would only take a veto-proof majority to enact Medicare for all.

The arc of history is bending away from you in regard to health care with an increasingly aging electorate that is demanding more access to affordable care

You cannot change that fact.

Deal with it.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

54. Well I don't have to assert it to strongly. I guess we just disagree.

Single-payer in the US is a delusional fantasy of the far left.

The Republicans are talking about privatizing the whole system. They are half the government, so if we want to get anything done we will have to be willing to work with them.

[Ikonoklast]

65. Enjoy your stay.

Who were you last time?

[Scuba]

71. Well it's realistic in many countries that are less prosperous than the US. You must have a very ..

... poor opinion of America and Americans to think that those countries can take care of their citizens but ours cannot.

Why do you think they're so much more capable than we are?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. yep - Obvious is it.

[gollygee]

34. Wow. It's amazing so many developed countries do it.

Canada must be a radical fringe country.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

37. In the United States it is a fringe position.

Al Sharpton and Denis Kucinich support it, but nobody who can win.

It is simply not a winning position. Sorry to disappoint, but this is not Canada.

[gollygee]

44. I don't think it's fringe

It isn't popular with corporations, or with the polticains they pour money into.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

45. It is a fringe posistion in Congress and among Presidential candidates.

That's all that matters.

[gollygee]

48. I disagree completely

Fringe means only people on the fringe in the country feel that way. Politicians might be behind the times, but if it is not fringe to the public, they will eventually have to come around if they want to be elected.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

51. If we want to get elected,

it would be better if we did not touch that with a ten foot pole.

All the money is on the other side.

[Scuba]

73. Yes, you and the other cons have all the money...

... but we have heart and votes.

[lonestarnot]

42. Ackety!

[ronnie624]

62. A slim majority of even Republican voters support, at minimum, a "public option".

A majority overall, supports a medicare style health insurance system. Far from "fringe".

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Proud Corporate Dem]

63. I'm talking about "fringe" as in "snowballs chance in hell of ever passing"

[ronnie624]

68. We wouldn't want people to have what they want.

That wouldn't be 'democratic'.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. alrighty then... fair is fair. Medicare For All or else Medicare For None. Medicare for Some?

Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

is that making sense to you . . .

is it?

[jeff47]

85. Hrm...50-80% supporting it is "no support"?

Will you only consider it to be supported when we break the 90% barrier?

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support

How you ask the question changes the answers, but the worst is about 50%.

[YoungDemCA]

72. "Proud Corporate Dem"

wtf kind of username is that?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. sorta sticks out, right

[pinboy3niner]

92. A nuked one :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=288956&sub=trans

[JDPriestly]

75. No. Eventually these programs, Social Security and Medicare, will have to be funded

from current payroll taxes rather than from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds that baby boomers put aside.

That is how I understand it. Republicans want to make you think that the programs are literally going broke, but as I understand it the Trust Funds run out -- for Medicare in 2024 if the ACA is maintained and for Social Security later.

Of course, it all depends on how well the economy goes.

If jobs become abundant (don't hold your breath), we could see a lot of seniors who are fit returning to work and putting money INTO Medicare and Social Security as well as taking it out. A lot of seniors have been forced to stop working before they would like because of the slow economy. And employers are more willing to hire and be tolerant of the disabilities of seniors when employers need workers.

So, don't worry about Medicare and Social Security.

[HiPointDem]

82. Ithe programs aren't funded from the TF's, they're funded from FICA taxes. The TFs are a

repository for surplus FICA taxes that were collected but not used (because not needed) at the time of collection. Presently contain over $2.5 trillion that was borrowed by the government to fund general operations.

You've got it backwards.

[B Calm]

7. If we cut the military budget in half

we could have medicare for all and get full SS retirement at age 60!

[Dustlawyer]

11. And we would still have the biggest military in the world! Our military budget is what

is unsustainable!

[Scuba]

13. We didn't win the "arms race". The Soviets just lost first.

[reformist2]

8. With SS, I'd throw it back at them and ask, does 'fully funded to 2038' sound like a crisis?

Also, to drive the point further, ask them if they remember the days when Repubs used to say that the Dems said everything was a crisis. Now look, it's the Repubs that are always saying the sky is falling.

[mulsh]

9. I first heard the 20 year meme in the 70's. That's well over 20 yearas ago.

I suspect when someone says "SS or MC will go broke in20 years" they are talking out of their ass.
Just a supposition.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. In fact, the same arguments were made when Republicans fought the passage of the original

Social Security legislation. So FDR signed it August 1935, Republicans have been saying it would go broke since let's say June of 35. Working on 80 years of the same tired old argument, they said the first generation would not get benefits they paid for, they say the same thing today.

[Shankapotomus]

14. Thank you

This will come in handy, I'm certain.

[Dragonfli]

19. I hate that tired old right wing lie, it goes something like this:

In 2015, taxes won’t cover Social Security payments. In 2025, total income for Social Security will be less than total outlays. In 2035, Social Security will take in $500 billion less than it pays out. In 2045, the Social Security Trust Funds will be $8 trillion in arrears. In short, without changes, the inter-generational promise of Social Security—our nation’s most important social insurance program—is a false one.

Right wing Conservatives are so predictable, even these Cons:
http://www.thirdway.org/publications/363

[tama]

25. Isn't it allready?

But nevertheless they keep spending. How long will it really take for MIC to collapse is anybody's guess, but IMHO we are talking in years, not decades. The sad part - as also e.g. Greece shows - is that the cancer of militarism is the last thing that governments stop feeding from the planetary body.

[Wounded Bear]

31. Anybody who buys into that statement has already

bought into the 'no new taxes' crapola from Grover Norquist and his dysfunctional Repube asshole buddies.

Both programs are self funded and have yet to contribute a dime to the deficit or the debt.

Some very simple fixes would make SS viable for the foreseeable future. Medicare is closer to the mythical insolvency point, but it, too can be fixed easily. But the fixes, if they are to be real fixes and not reductions, require new revenues.

I know what you're trying to do with your question, and you are right. The MIC needs to be taken down a notch or two in the budget plan. It is the biggest source of waste, fraud, and abuse in government right now. It is morally repugnant what we prioritize in our budgets IMHO.

[gollygee]

36. The government will spend money depending on the priorities of hte people we vote for

If we vote for people who don't prioritize SS and MC, then the programs will go broke. If we vote for people who prioritize them, they will make a budget that funds them.

[jberryhill]

61. ...and the Postal Service, and Amtrak...

You make a great point there.

[freshwest]

88. Good one! I usually say, only if you allow that. It's up to you. Political will.