I don't see that. In the end the gov't will cover the ones who are, in fact, incapable of working. I don't see them letting helpless infirm elderly starve to death.Originally Posted by lofter1
Yeah, sure, like the gov't wouldn't fritter away the $2.5 trillion or so it was holding for pay for the baby boomers.., or, oops...
I agree that changes need to be made. But saying to the populace that the only other option is to give their savings to bankers and traders and hope for the best will take us down a very bad road.
The retirement of the baby boomers, and lower revenues from a bad economy, are the reasons the Social Security surplus is dwindling.
This issue is a sideshow in a time of real crisis.
We've barely averted a second Great Depression.
Unemployment is still above 9 percent.
Thousands of workers are running out of jobless benefits every day, with few jobs to be had.
Home foreclosures are rampant.
And we're losing sleep about maybe paying higher taxes or trimming benefits 30 years from now? Weird.
There is no more SS surplus. SS went into deficit last year (because of the economy.) Previously that had been predicted to happen in 2017, so we're ahead of schedule.
But you're correct in that the US is becoming economically irrelevent, and devolving into a third world country.
THIRD world? That's a bit ridiculous.
Good to understand the term if that kind of description regarding national status is going to be used.
New nomenclature will be needed when the next phase arrives.
Social Security has a small yearly deficit right now (it has started to give out more money than it takes in year-to-year) but it has a massive surplus built up of more than $2 trillion built up over the years. That is why, as you say, Social Security may run out of money 30 years from now -- not last year.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Of course I said no such thing. The world's #1 economy is quite far from irrelevance. But if you're truly concerned about "Third World" conditions in this country and want to help those who really are hurting in a recession -- well, this is a reason to patch holes in the safety net, not wield the scissors.
What your talking about is the Social Security Trust Fund. Unfortunately, it's nothing but an accounting fraud. Why? Because the only assest in the SS Trust Fund are US treasury bonds. Right now the US gov't is running at a deficit of about 30% or more of expendatures. So tell me this, when SS needs it's money back from the treasury to pay benefits, where is the treasury going to get it? Basically the trust fund is gone, and we're back to "pay as you go" with the bulk of the baby boom hitting retirement.Social Security has a small yearly deficit right now (it has started to give out more money than it takes in year-to-year) but it has a massive surplus built up of more than $2 trillion built up over the years. That is why, as you say, Social Security may run out of money 30 years from now -- not last year.
We're turning into a third world country for a lot of reasons. But profligate spending is high on the list.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Of course I said no such thing. The world's #1 economy is quite far from irrelevance. But if you're truly concerned about "Third World" conditions in this country and want to help those who really are hurting in a recession -- well, this is a reason to patch holes in the safety net, not wield the scissors.
Please name the specific ways that the USA is "turning into a third world country."
For one, our ignorance is increasing.....
You don't think we're starting to resemble Brazil and/or Argentina in the middle of their debt crises, but on a much larger scale. How about out deindustrialization? Booming unemployment?
But that isn't what designates a country as Third World. It's a socio-political construct from the 1950's regarding "an entity with common characteristics, such as poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the advanced countries."
While the USA is an "advanced country" now in trouble, a whole new construct beyond First World and others is needed to accurately describe where things are moving. To hold on to those old definitions just confuses the complex issues at hand. What the US could become has little in relation to what Brazil and Argentina were 50+ years ago. Following the collapse of the USSR that Three Worlds construct was broadened to Seven Worlds. Seems we're ready for new designations.
IOW BBMW, you need to update, and be more careful with your sound-bite appellations.
What may make perfect sense to a pundit (just like "liberal" meaning radical left instead of its dictionary definition), it does not apply in a conversation with people who know better.
So instead of defending something that is clearly inaccurate, just drop it and move on.
The US will suffer something similar to what Russia did in its partial collapse. It will never be fully relying on other countries for Penicillin or Steel.
Interesting maps showing the evolution in recent years of "freedom" around the world ...
(Map: The Economist)
Map of Freedom in the World
Has The World Peaked? Ctd
THE DAILY DISH
by Patrick Appel
01 FEB 2011
Larison maintains his pessimism:
While the last thirty years have seen remarkable advances in the spread of democratic government and liberal political culture, it cannot be stressed enough that many of these advances are still fragile and reversible in many places, and they are also very recent developments that everyone has to acknowledge to be historically atypical.
That doesn’t mean that we should ignore political change, or pretend that democratization always leads to a new form of despotism, but it does mean that we shouldn’t ignore the clear lessons of the dangers that come from democratization-as-shock-therapy when they are clearly relevant. If democratists would like a more up-to-date version of the warning about the potential dangers of rapid democratization and economic liberalization, they can consult World on Fire.
COPYRIGHT © TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 BY THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY GROUP
@loft...
Yes, that is interesting. Seems like SA is progressing, while Africa is definitely backsliding and areas in the middle east are still unstable.
Oddly enough, Russia is more stable now, but only because it has returned to a form of the communist rule they held previously. The "diet' their empire took may make them leaner and stronger in the long run.
China is still the one to look out for. They are a very obedient nation to ruling despots, but they also seem to go through cycles of rebellion. We will see if this latest rule is iron-clad enough to hold the growing social pressure evoked by despotic rule.
Finally, good news for seniors:
Social Security to hand out first raises since '09
]By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP – 11 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security recipients will get a raise in January — their first increase in benefits since 2009. It's expected to be about 3.5 percent.
Some 55 million beneficiaries will find out for sure Wednesday when a government inflation measure that determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment is released.
Congress adopted the measure in the 1970s, and since then it has resulted in annual benefit increases averaging 4.2 percent. But there was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low. That was small comfort to the millions of retirees and disabled people who have seen retirement accounts dwindle and home values drop during the period of economic weakness, said David Certner, legislative policy director for the AARP.
"People certainly feel like they are falling behind, and these are modest income folks to begin with, so every dollar counts," Certner said. "I think sometimes people forget what seniors' incomes are."
Some of the increase in January will be lost to higher Medicare premiums, which are deducted from Social Security payments. Medicare Part B premiums for 2012 are expected to be announced next week, and the trustees who oversee the program are projecting an increase.
Monthly Social Security payments average $1,082, or about $13,000 a year. A 3.5 percent increase would amount to an additional $38 a month, or about $455 a year.
Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/social-securit...164904352.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks