FreedomYankee (correct, my apologies) called Social Security "low hanging fruit" and recommended that we look elsewhere for cuts since it is morally wrong to pull the benefits from those who have "paid in" their entire lives. Yankee Patriot is right, it is morally wrong and the politicians who refused to make the hard choices are as much to blame as an infantile public that kept putting the con men into office. But Social Security isn't "low hanging fruit" by any stretch of reality.
Bottom line is that the Federal government has been bankrupt for years.
Sixty percent of the US Federal Budget goes to "non-discretionary" spending. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, mandatory interest payments on the debt.
Sixty percent of the US Federal Budget accounts for 100% of Federal Revenue. Did you get that? Before even a dime is spent on all the alphabet soup agencies (CIA, DIA, DOD, FBI, IRS, TSA, DHS, USM, etc) all the tax money gathered for the entire year has already been spent.
So where does that "discretionary spending" funding come from? Debt. This is why the "debt ceiling" has been continuously raised every year over the last decade. Unless the fedgov can FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE NON-DISCRETIONARY SPENDING there is no way to stop borrowing money. When ALL discretionary spending is borrowed money you have to borrow money.
And discretionary spending is low hanging fruit. This is the funding that the Republicans threatened a government shutdown over. This is the 80 billion in "cuts" that cut nothing. These are the cuts that only require a simple majority in Congress. Things that are "non-discretionary" require a SUPER MAJORITY.
Until Federal Revenue is larger than the Federal Budget the only way to fund the .gov is by increasing the public debt. Since you could get rid of ALL discretionary spending and still barely break even, there is no real "low hanging" fruit to solve this problem.
There are only two types of cuts, significant and insignificant. So far EVERYTHING from BOTH SIDES of the aisle has been INSIGNIFICANT.
Simply by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and CHIP) and slicing the DOD budget in half the Federal Budget would be fixed. Why? Because that accounts for 50% of the budget right there.
That would allow the fedgov to reduce our public debt to ZERO in a grand total of... (drumroll please lets see 2.2 trillion (revenue) minus 1.75 trillion (half the current budget) equals 0.45 Trillion, 0.45 goes in to 14.3 trillion (the current debt) how many times?) 32 years not factoring in the interest on that debt. So imagine, 32 years just to cover the PRINCIPLE of what we owe, so tack on another 12 years to cover the interest on that principle and we are looking at 44 years....
Look, the numbers don't lie. We have borrowed more money, more quickly, than any nation over the history of all humanity. We are in uncharted territory as far as the shear size of this fiscal crisis.
The Republicans don't have a supermajority and the Dems won't touch SS, Medicare or Medicaid. I was hoping for a Government Shutdown because it would be the only thing that would actually save any money.
So it is morally right for those of us under 50 to DEMAND that Social Security be stopped even while we have to keep paying payroll taxes (the numbers won't allow a balanced budget any other way). We are so far up shit creek that this is our only feasible option to get back to solvency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You are absolutely correct on what needs to be done, the problem is thatthe politician will not look past their own self interest and a large part of the pupulace is used to the "free stuff" from the gub-ment and they will scream and holler, and possibly riot when the gravy stops. See what happened to Greece? I wish they would make the hard choices because our republic will not survive if the hard choice arn't made.
Freedomyankee actually, regardless, if this economy was not decimated by Free trade agreements, Gatt and Nafta.
Local municipalities, State and now The Federal coffers would not be empty.
No one can argue with your statistics, my issue is with the methodology.
A fairly major city near me, equivalent to most 75,000 pop. cities, use to hand out lucrative contracts, excellent city jobs everybody wanted and was flush with cash to maintain the infrastructure.
What's changed, the loss of a revenue base due the former industry lost from the long term plans stated above.
When people had jobs they worked at for 30 years with a pension at retirement,funding of the social security was less of an issue and needed to be dealt with then.
I was "calling" out the S.S. system 20 years ago and was called "nutty" for any suggestion as to forming an untouchable interest bearing account out of the government hands, sans oversight to keep it from being abused.
Do you really believe the same government that caused this problem will take all the new found revenue, at your suggestion and use it wisely ?
Your suggestion in "ditching" the S.S system to deal with our current monetary crisis is analogous to dealing with Cancer by offering pain pills rather than surgical removal.
This Junkie (.gov) needs an intervention, not another fix.
This country needs revenue generation, AKA Jobs, which provides, Social security funding, the stability which employment brings, non governmental inspired health care plans through am employer and funds needed to keep a nation from crumbling.
Are the "99 ers" next on the hit parade for revenue conservation, guess what, their problems are related to the issues plaguing social security funding.
There was a time in this country when you needed extra funds every week you didn't cut your spending, you found an extra job and they where available in the past.
To cut spending rather than a plan to return this to a robust economy is to admit this country is defeated, to beg for crumbs rather than acquire the bakery.
A wealhty ecomomy is a healthy economy, period.
I for one am not willing to settle for less, this country was built to excel and that was a hard fought rite, bought and paid for by those before me, concession is a dishonor to these great people.
I believe your motives are well intended, my premise is the problem lies elsewhere.
"“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root,” Henry David Thoreau
'Nuf said' on my part be well.............
yes ans no
end the ponzi scheme collecting from the younger (under 55) but continue for those (over 55) who have had the payroll tax collected by force of law for all their working lives. Now if we could get the media to report that this is exactly what Ryan's reporting instead of the scare headlines "GOP killing Social security, Medicare".
Post a Comment