Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Mother`s Day to all Moms!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2013, 05:38 AM
 
1,546 posts, read 2,555,502 times
Reputation: 1400

Advertisements

Increased attention to risks that could affect the federal government’s financial condition is
made more important because of the nation’s longer-term fiscal challenges. The
comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required
Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States
Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal
government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path. The oldest members of the
baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and for
Medicare benefits. Under these projections, spending for the major health and retirement
programs will increase in coming decades as more members of the baby-boom generation
become eligible for benefits and the health care cost for each enrollee increases. Over the
long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to continued
growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP; this means the current structure of the
federal budget is unsustainable.

The report:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-271R

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:10 AM
 
30,120 posts, read 18,730,821 times
Reputation: 20964
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandMike View Post
Increased attention to risks that could affect the federal government’s financial condition is
made more important because of the nation’s longer-term fiscal challenges. The
comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required
Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States
Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal
government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path. The oldest members of the
baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and for
Medicare benefits. Under these projections, spending for the major health and retirement
programs will increase in coming decades as more members of the baby-boom generation
become eligible for benefits and the health care cost for each enrollee increases. Over the
long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to continued
growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP; this means the current structure of the
federal budget is unsustainable.

The report:
U.S. GAO - Financial Audit: U.S. Government's Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements

True. Howver, at this point, we have a dependent population with low IQs who put Obama into office and cannot see past lunchtime, let alone one to two years into the future.

Obama's constituents live thier lives without planning (thus thier economic state). To ask them to make intelligent, rational decisions would be like asking a dog to master calculus. With the idiotic dependent class in charge of the "majority", the nation is in deep trouble. Does one ever ask a moron for advice? So why in the world do we ask morons to select the president?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:25 AM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,500,696 times
Reputation: 1406
FactCheck.org : FactCheck Mailbag, Week of Feb. 22-28
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,741,762 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandMike View Post
Increased attention to risks that could affect the federal government’s financial condition is
made more important because of the nation’s longer-term fiscal challenges. The
comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required
Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States
Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal
government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path. The oldest members of the
baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and for
Medicare benefits. Under these projections, spending for the major health and retirement
programs will increase in coming decades as more members of the baby-boom generation
become eligible for benefits and the health care cost for each enrollee increases. Over the
long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to continued
growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP; this means the current structure of the
federal budget is unsustainable.

The report:
U.S. GAO - Financial Audit: U.S. Government's Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements
Under Obama? Clinton talked about the cost of baby boomers retiring, and so did Bush I and Bush II, Your own quote says this will happen over the decades, so what is this "under Obama"? It is an interesting, and important topic, but the partisal hackery destroys the credibility of your argument. Nothing about this has changed in decades, and everyone has known it is coming, and yet every time someone (like Gore) suggests that we put SS contributions in a "lock box", their political opponenets laugh at them.

Quote:
The oldest members of the baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and for
Medicare benefits. Under these projections, spending for the major health and retirement programs will increase in coming decades as more members of the baby-boom generation become eligible for benefits and the health care cost for each enrollee increases
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:50 AM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,500,696 times
Reputation: 1406
The so-called Social Security crisis started when President Reagan raided the trust fund and used your money to pay for general fund expenditures; and then, President Bush argued, disingenuously, that since the government has misspent the money, that that's good reason for reforming (i.e., "eliminating") Social Security and replacing it with private investment accounts. The truth is that privatization will be primed with borrowed money while employment taxes will be pumped into the equity markets, which will effectively scuttle the program and shift the blame for it when it founders. Just think of what your private plan would be worth in today’s market. (I am reminded of the scene in Catch-22 when Yossarian checks his parachute and finds it replaced with a share of stock in M&M Enterprises.) If the Republicans have their way, your Social Security and Medicare benefits will end up being a lottery ticket and the number for Dial-A-Prayer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:01 AM
 
45,275 posts, read 26,532,039 times
Reputation: 25028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
The so-called Social Security crisis started when President Reagan raided the trust fund and used your money to pay for general fund expenditures; and then, President Bush argued, disingenuously, that since the government has misspent the money, that that's good reason for reforming (i.e., "eliminating") Social Security and replacing it with private investment accounts. The truth is that privatization will be primed with borrowed money while employment taxes will be pumped into the equity markets, which will effectively scuttle the program and shift the blame for it when it founders. Just think of what your private plan would be worth in today’s market. (I am reminded of the scene in Catch-22 when Yossarian checks his parachute and finds it replaced with a share of stock in M&M Enterprises.) If the Republicans have their way, your Social Security and Medicare benefits will end up being a lottery ticket and the number for Dial-A-Prayer.
Why did you skip Clinton doing the same thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,619,694 times
Reputation: 27720
Don't worry your pretty little heads about fiscal issues.

We have gay rights, immigration and equal pay for women to worry about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:07 AM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,500,696 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Why did you skip Clinton doing the same thing?
Social Security has been paid from the general fund ever since the Reagan administration; the so-called Social Security Trust Fund is a "lockbox" filled with IOU's. Social Security, and in part Medicare, are required by law to be self-funding; and so the way to resolve any shortfall is to simply raise the cap. However, that is politically incorrect because it would raise taxes on those who could afford to pay them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,619,694 times
Reputation: 27720
Why the "blame game" here ? Does it really matter WHO got us to this point ?
Both sides played their part when they held power.

The issue is that we are here now and it doesn't look good, does it ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:15 AM
 
45,275 posts, read 26,532,039 times
Reputation: 25028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
Social Security has been paid from the general fund ever since the Reagan administration; the so-called Social Security Trust Fund is a "lockbox" filled with IOU's. Social Security, and in part Medicare, are required by law to be self-funding; and so the way to resolve any shortfall is to simply raise the cap. However, that is politically incorrect because it would raise taxes on those who could afford to pay them.
Great non answer to my question.

S.S. is a tax on anyone who gets a paycheck and hurts the low wage earners the most, as well as it is simply an income redistribution scheme i.e.working people supporting non-working people.
Best thing to do with it is to let us opt out and those who have faith in it can continue to pay in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top