where i agree with the dems

everyone talks about entitlements in the budget and thats where the real cuts have to be made...they say thats where the money is.....i disagree if we are ever to return to sound principles

heres my reasoning:

social security takes in more than it currently pays out. it is self sufficient currently. it may require a fix in the future, but massive changes, no. doing away with social security is a matter for another discussion, for the sake of this one I limit my discussion to the fact it is currently solvent and it is, supposedly, a separate program and should be off line.

medicare may be another matter as to its current solvency, but the cuts in medicare made under obamacare, should they merely remain in medicare and not be siphoned off for obamacare, would go a long way to its current fix.

those programs, their costs and their revenues, should be set aside. THEN THE REST OF THE BUDGET SHOULD SHRINK TO EQUAL THE REMAINING REVENUES. it is that simple if we are ever to get to sound principles. i know its not simple to get that through congress, but it is the proper thing.

for many years, perhaps as long as i can remember, we have had 5 year or ten year or 25 year plans or the "out years" or future cuts to address our deficits and it never ever gets us anywhere.

we need to go back to before Johnsons Great Society and undo the great harm that allowed the grab of social security funds.

The doctors I know say that Medicare is going to get more and more costly as the hi-tech treatment costs continue to rise.

One foreign doctor told me that in his country (witnout a national health plan) when an 80 year old man needs a heart transplant that would bankrupt his offspring, they rationalize not getting it with "Well Dad has lived a good long life. It's time to let him go in peace".

In this country, the offspring say "Whatever it takes to keep Dad alive, let's do it!" (spending Medicare money).

Nobody wants to put a cap on treatments. It's cold-hearted. Anyone who opens the discussion is putting a dollar value on a human life. Is an 85 year old's life worth $50,000 but not $500,000? Is a 65 year old's life worth more?

we need to go back to before Johnsons Great Society and undo the great harm that allowed the grab of social security funds. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Jeezus. I'm about to have to say this for the 10,000th time in my life. Why can't people get this straight?

THERE WAS NEVER A "GRAB" OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS UNDER JOHNSON OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. THE TRUST FUNDS WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL OPERATING FUND. THEY ARE NOW, AND ALWAYS WERE, SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE GENERAL BUDGET. THEY WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL FUND OR USED TO PAY FOR NON-PROGRAM EXPENSES IN THE MAIN BUDGET. THE TRUST FUNDS OPERATE TODAY JUST AS THEY DID WHEN THE ORIGINAL LAW WAS PASSED.

There. Now it's in bold and maybe people will listen this time.

Go look it up for yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

I am so sick of hearing about how Johnson and evil Democrats "raided" Social Security that I'm ready to puke on the next person who says it. This was nothing but a bullshit lie put out to steal the votes of people too dumb to know better. Apparently it's still working. A sad comment on the state of US politics, isn't it?

Not too many cheers,
Mazo.

Jeezus. I'm about to have to say this for the 10,000th time in my life. Why can't people get this straight?

THERE WAS NEVER A "GRAB" OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS UNDER JOHNSON OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. THE TRUST FUNDS WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL OPERATING FUND. THEY ARE NOW, AND ALWAYS WERE, SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE GENERAL BUDGET. THEY WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL FUND OR USED TO PAY FOR NON-PROGRAM EXPENSES IN THE MAIN BUDGET. THE TRUST FUNDS OPERATE TODAY JUST AS THEY DID WHEN THE ORIGINAL LAW WAS PASSED.

There. Now it's in bold and maybe people will listen this time.

Go look it up for yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

I am so sick of hearing about how Johnson and evil Democrats "raided" Social Security that I'm ready to puke on the next person who says it. This was nothing but a bullshit lie put out to steal the votes of people too dumb to know better. Apparently it's still working. A sad comment on the state of US politics, isn't it?

Not too many cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

the ss act of 1965 created medicare and medicaid....and began the great society program of johnson's and with that began the expansion of government. and where did they look to mask the deficit thus created? they used the social security surplus. quite simple..and thus began our slide into oblivion

THERE WAS NEVER A "GRAB" OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS UNDER JOHNSON OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. THE TRUST FUNDS WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL OPERATING FUND. THEY ARE NOW, AND ALWAYS WERE, SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE GENERAL BUDGET. THEY WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE GENERAL FUND OR USED TO PAY FOR NON-PROGRAM EXPENSES IN THE MAIN BUDGET. THE TRUST FUNDS OPERATE TODAY JUST AS THEY DID WHEN THE ORIGINAL LAW WAS PASSED. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

That has all the validity as saying...DURING THE 1980'S, WHEN ALL THE S&L'S WERE OWNED BY REAL ESTATE GUYS, AND THE OWNERS OF THE S&L'S LENT ALL THEIR MONEY OUT TO THE OWNERS, WITH LITTLE OR NO EQUITY IN THE DEAL, THAT WAS ALL OK BECAUSE THEY MAINTAINED LOAN AGREEMENTS, THAT WERE "SEPERATE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE OWNERS BUDGET. THEY WERE NEVER ADDED TO THE OWNERS FUNDS OR USED TO PAY FOR NON-S&L EXPENSES".

Geez Mazo...I think you actually believe your BS. If my left pocket has a bunch of IOU's from my right pocket. It's pretty much BS to make it sound like my left pocket is not wholly dependent on my right pocket.

Geez Mazo...I think you actually believe your BS. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Geez Rudyard, maybe you stop for a second and realize that we're talking about a completely different thing.

The charge that Johnson "raided" the trust funds has nothing to do with the reinvestment of trust fund moneys into government bonds. (Which is, btw, another part of the SS system that's been in place from the very beginning).

What Never is on about is the bogus charge that Johnson was actually moved money from SS trust fund and put it directly into the general operating fund. That NEVER happened.

I know it's hard to read the link I posted when you're sitting on your high horse, but you could at least make sure you're talking about the same subject before going out and making a fool of yourself.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Geez Rudyard, maybe you stop for a second and realize that we're talking about a completely different thing.

The charge that Johnson "raided" the trust funds has nothing to do with the reinvestment of trust fund moneys into government bonds. (Which is, btw, another part of the SS system that's been in place from the very beginning).

What Never is on about is the bogus charge that Johnson was actually moved money from SS trust fund and put it directly into the general operating fund. That NEVER happened.



Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

i am not..i am talking about taking social security off line...you have set something up and knock it down and then crow....

comprehension is a soothing characteristic

Geez Rudyard, maybe you stop for a second and realize that we're talking about a completely different thing.

The charge that Johnson "raided" the trust funds has nothing to do with the reinvestment of trust fund moneys into government bonds. (Which is, btw, another part of the SS system that's been in place from the very beginning).

What Never is on about is the bogus charge that Johnson was actually moved money from SS trust fund and put it directly into the general operating fund. That NEVER happened.

I know it's hard to read the link I posted when you're sitting on your high horse, but you could at least make sure you're talking about the same subject before going out and making a fool of yourself.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Hell, I don't even like horses. But as typical, you get wrapped up in symantics rather than reality. Semantics is the bane of people who really have to do something...because their opponents cloud the minds with the BS of symantics.

What Never said was we need to go back before Johnson's great society that allowed him to grab social secutrity funds. The fact that he expanded such grab in the form of borrowings, is a great symantic...but it doesn't really change the facts. Social spending expanded significantly under Johnson...and much of the "funding" of such expansion came from borrowing from the trust fund. But go ahead and play your little word games with the populous. I'm sure someone is listening.

the ss act of 1965 created medicare and medicaid....and began the great society program of johnson's and with that began the expansion of government. and where did they look to mask the deficit thus created? they used the social security surplus. quite simple..and thus began our slide into oblivion Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The change to the unified budget procedures changed NOTHING except how much paper Washington used. It was an accounting change only. It made no difference to anything related to the SS fund.

There was no "masking" of any deficits. There was no hiding money. There was certainly no "raiding" of any trust funds.

The only thing that happened when the budget was unified was that - for the first time in history - people actually got to see the fiscal state of the US government all in one place. The dramatic changes you're all up in arms about amounted to an accountant getting all the numbers together and sticking them on one sheet of paper instead of having them spread over sixty sheets scattered around two dozen federal agencies. There was no gain or loss or raid or depletion. NOTHING changed except our ability to see what government bonds and obligations were really worth.

Oh, and since you obviously missed it, those changes that "began our slide into oblivion" were actually undone in 1990 and - SURPRISE! - nothing happened again. Somehow, even though we reversed these evil laws, we still ended up right where we were. Shocking.

Not only was this such a minor event that nobody noticed when it happened, it was such a minor event that nobody noticed when they changed it back either. The only reason we're even having this discussion is that some lying, shameless bastard decided to use this garbage to trick dumb people into voting Republican a few years ago. Like I said, it looks to have worked.

You're complaining about something that's as much a non-event as Bret Favre announcing his retirement. It's all just a bunch of lies. End of story. How is it that you can't just go out on the internet, read the truth, and figure this out for yourself????

Mazo.

social security was moved onto the budget for one major reason...funky accounting to mask the size of the deficit

thus more spending could be had...when there is spending..there is less money available..or maybe you dont think so

my point is ..take it back off...set it aside...its not insolvent currently..and address the rest of the budget...

you seem out of sorts...

As someone who is in Health Care and will probably retire that way, I can honestly say that Mandatory Health Insurance WILL help. The fact is, that millions of people use government money to pay for their medical bills thus resulting in the debt we have now. Add to that a multi-billion dollar fraud debt, and it's no easy fix.

Even if people who are paying NOTHING now are forced to pay something as low as $40 a month, that is still feeding back into the system. Of course you can't force people to have the insurance, just like you can't force people to get car insurance....but the ones who can afford it already have it now.

The cons I see with this rule are that many will still not buy insurance. They will just pay the fine if and when they are caught, but that's still money back in the system. The reason we have so many people in the ER now is because people who are uninsured wait until something major happens to ever get help. They neglect primary care, screenings, and other tests which could have prevented this crisis in the first place.

When you have a choice of feeding your children or paying your premium, most opt for the first. Closing the doughnut hole in Medicare part D is another aspect I wrote a paper on last semester. The main problem with Health Care in the U.S. in general is that we treat the symptom and not the root. We are so quick to prescribe yet another pill, instead of trying to get to the main source of the problem. Medication is literally killing America because it allows people to continue making bad choices and get a quick fix after the fact. "Oh don't want to stop smoking, eat right and exercise? Here take this!"

In a way I find most Docs are like bad service providers....they get you in, out, and bill you for every additional thing they can think of. You have docs at war with their Admin., Admin at war with the insurance companies, and the patient is lost in the mix while everyone else is just worried about their bottom line. Personally, I am ashamed to have to work in U.S. Health Care because I have so much more respect towards other countries approach to it...especially Europe.

Then again, there are big bucks in Health Care Admin. in the U.S. but it would be nice to see a CEO stand up for what is right now and then.

social security was moved onto the budget for one major reason...funky accounting to mask the size of the deficit

thus more spending could be had...when there is spending..there is less money available..or maybe you dont think so

my point is ..take it back off...set it aside...its not insolvent currently..and address the rest of the budget...

you seem out of sorts... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Gee Rudyard, you still think he's talking about investing the funds in fed backed securities?

ONE MORE TIME:

The Social Security Trust Fund is NOT "on the budget". The trust fund accounts were never "masking" the deficit. They were never mixed with the operating fund.

Read the link I posted. Learn. It's a hoax. A myth. There's no need to "take it back off...set it aside...and address the rest of the budget..." because it was never that way to begin with.

You are being duped Never. What you are complaining about simply didn't happen.

And yes, I am out of sorts. I think that spread a purposeful lie design to trick people into voting one way or another is tantamount to treason. There's nothing that pisses me off more than these internet hoax - regardless of which side start them - that are designed to do nothing but trick people into voting against their own interest. It's disgusting and as you noticed I get really, really pissed off by it.

Cheers,
Mazo.

what i am complaining about happened...social security funds mask the true deficit and i think should be taken out of the budget....

the point is..we dont "need" to cut entitlements...as everyone keeps saying....we need to address everything else or the deficit will never be effectively addressed...its hard to see why you keep repeating what you are and not comprehending the simpleness of removing social security from the mix....and yes the reason it was put online was to be able to mask the otherwise larger stated general fund BUDGET deficit that would have resulted had it not been

Social spending expanded significantly under Johnson...and much of the "funding" of such expansion came from borrowing from the trust fund. But go ahead and play your little word games with the populous. I'm sure someone is listening. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Want to talk about misleading semantics? Just take a peak at what you just said.

The expansive "borrowing from the trust fund" you're so worried about did not, my horse-hating friend, start under Johnson. It started UNDER THE ORIGINAL LAW THAT CREATED SOCIAL SECURITY!

This is just one more stupid lie about how Johnson and the Democrats devised these clever ways of stealing SS money from the poor, unsuspecting populace.

Social Security funds MUST be invested in government backed securities. That's the law. It always has been the law. From the very beginning the trust fund income was used to buy government bonds. It's the only thing you can do with it. You can't put the money anywhere else.

What exactly would you like them to do with your SS funds, Rudyard? Cattle? Pork belly futures? How about a little land out in Arizona? Or maybe we should keep a couple trillion in $1 bills laying around? Or should we do nothing with it at all and sell even more government debt to the Saudis and Chinese?

The money for the SS trust funds always went into US treasuries. It's the only investment the trust managers are allowed to make. This didn't change under Johnson, it didn't change under Reagan, it didn't change under anybody. There is nobody to point your sticky finger at on this one no matter how hard you try.

Whatever you may think about increases or decreases in government spending is a separate matter. It simply, however, has nothing to do with the SS system. Social Security runs as a completely separate and independently accountable entity to the rest of the federal budget. No matter how you may want to spin it the facts are the facts. Social Security has not been "raided" by anyone.

Mazo.

Maz , what they are saying is that SS did nothing with their surplus except accept IOU's from the government. They did not buy stocks or land to be sold off. While it may not have tricked you , it has masked the size of the debt that the rest of the government has run up. That I think is the point. LBJ did it to mask Defense spending on Vietnam if the truth be told.

The article was written in 1998 btw and is still revelent today as it was then.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/security/stories/oss052998.htm

A little history. In 1968, in order to pay for the war in Vietnam and pretty up the numbers of a surging budget deficit, President Johnson arbitrarily decided to include Social Security in the budget. Social Security was then, as now, taking in more money every year from workers than it pays out to old folks. It helped LBJ produce balanced books

During the recent balanced-budget amendment debates, a loud chorus of senators screamed that counting Social Security in the budget constitutes stealing from old folks. It is nothing of the sort. It is merely an accounting convention. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether you count Social Security or not. You have either spent the Social Security surplus or you have not.
And we do spend it. It goes immediately to the Treasury for spending on roads and bridges and welfare and soldiers.
Today, the Social Security surplus is at least $100 billion per year. Thus all of the federal budget surplus comes from the Social Security surplus. If you take Social Security off-budget – return to the pre-LBJ practice of counting it separately – the federal budget shows not a surplus of, say, $63 billion but a deficit of more than $37 billion. Why is this a good idea? Because a federal budget still in deficit is a disincentive to spending. After all, what politician is going to stand up and say, "It is okay to increase spending because it is only coming out of Social Security"?