Think long and hard about this!!!!!!

[gherman]

As you make you're decision on a new president think long and hard about this...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

 

[financeguy]

Glenn Beck? I could make a better man out of a banana.

 

[BVS]

Glenn Beck?

Exactly...

 

[diamond]

on this issue, glenn is right on the money-no pun.

on the whole glenn beck is an out the box thinker and a righteous man.

dbs

 

[U2DMfan]

It's really the biggest issue we have.
Bigger than the war.
And it also tells us exactly what's wrong with our country.

In 2004 when Bush was re-elected, he spent all of his political capital from that re-election trying to push that shitty plan of his through Congress. Crap plan and it left the Republicans impotent on the issue.

The Democrats were quick to point out how shitty the plan was and yet, haven't offered up anything as an alternative.

Once again, the party of bad ideas vs the party of no ideas.

I've said it from the jump, the two party system fails this country.

It's going to take sacrifice and there isn't a politican in DC willing to step up to the plate and risk his/her re-election to tell the public the truth about this issue.

The Republicans cutting taxes, which IMO does for the economy like bailing water out of a leaky boat with a luxury deck. It keeps you from sinking, does nothing to solve the actual problem and the people up top, never get wet.

The Democrats sit around arguing about how shitty the boat is and describing the ideal boat with no idea how to put that boat on the drawing board. They then fudge the numbers on what the price is. They are afraid to tell you what their ambitions will cost you.

I don't really like Glenn Beck but I agree with him here.

 

[gherman]

This has NOTHING to do with Glenn Beck. You need to set that aside and pay attection to the issue because it disturbing and true. Its a good article.

 

[diamond]

This has NOTHING to do with Glenn Beck. You need to set that aside and pay attection to the issue because it disturbing and true. Its a good article.

Brother,

I don't think these kids can.

It's kill the messenger first examine the message later and justify the killing even later in these parts

dbs

 

[gherman]

Brother,

I don't think these kids can.

It's kill the messenger first examine the message later and justify the killing even later in these parts

dbs

I know and its sad.

The only thing I don't like about the article is he gives the U.S. public too much credit. Most people really don't want the truth because the truth is too scary but we need to start dealing with it. That is shown just in the first few posts on this thread.

Non of our candidates like to talk about it either. Not going into who I like but one thing I can say is Ron Paul is the only one I have heard that actually has a plan. Wheather he's right or wrong I don't know but at least he has the guts to put it on the table.

 

[financeguy]

I know and its sad.

The only thing I don't like about the article is he gives the U.S. public too much credit. Most people really don't want the truth because the truth is too scary but we need to start dealing with it. That is shown just in the first few posts on this thread.

Brother,

I don't think these kids can.

It's kill the messenger first examine the message later and justify the killing even later in these parts

dbs

I think I'd assign more weight to the opinions of a real, actual, qualified economist (and one who has been writing about the issue for years) than Glen Beck:-

The Distant Future

The distant future plays a strangely large role in the current discussion. To convince us of the direness of our plight, privatizers invoke the vast combined infinite-horizon unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. Their answer to that supposed danger is to borrow trillions of dollars to pay for private accounts, which supposedly will solve the problem through the magic of high stock returns (a supposition I've just debunked.) And all that borrowing will be harmless, say the privatizers, because the long-run budget position of the federal government won't be affected: payments 30, 40, 50 years from now will be reduced, and in present value terms that will offset the borrowing over the nearer term.

I'm all for looking ahead. But most of this is just wrong-headed, on multiple levels.

Let me start with the easiest piece: why the distant future of Medicare is something we really should ignore. And bear in mind that most of those huge numbers you hear about implicit liabilities come from Medicare, not Social Security; more to the point, they mostly come from projected increases in medical costs, not demography.

Now the main reason medical costs keep rising is that the range of things medicine can do keeps increasing. In the last few years my father and mother-inlaw have both had life-saving and life-enhancing medical procedures that didn't exist a decade or two ago; it's procedures like those that account for the rising cost of Medicare.

Long-run projections assume, perhaps correctly, that this trend will continue. In 2100 Medicare may be paying for rejuvenation techniques or prosthetic brain replacements, and that will cost a lot of money.

But does it make any sense to worry now about how to pay for all that? Intergenerational responsibility is a fine thing, but I can't see why the cost of medical treatments that have not yet been invented, applied to people who have not yet been born, should play any role in shaping today's policy.

Social Security's distant future isn't quite as speculative, but it's still pretty uncertain. What do you think the world will look like in 2105? My guess is that by then the computers will be smarter than we are, and we can let them deal with things; but the truth is that we haven't the faintest idea. I doubt that anyone really believes that it's important to look beyond the traditional 75-year window. It has only become fashionable lately because it's a way to make the situation look more dire.

Now let's return slightly more to the world outside science fiction, and ask the question: can we really count purported savings several decades out as an offset to huge borrowing today?

The answer should be a clear no, for one simple reason: a bond issue is a true commitment to repay, while a purported change in future benefits is just a suggestion to whoever is running the country decades from now.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010305F.shtml

 

[financeguy]

It's really the biggest issue we have.
Bigger than the war.
And it also tells us exactly what's wrong with our country.

No, it's what the corporatists want you to believe is the biggest issue.

 

[BVS]

Brother,

I don't think these kids can.

I'm sure financeguy gets just about as big of a kick as I do that we are lumped into the same category.

Yes, it's an important issue, but does Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you.

 

[watergate]

I liked Obama's speech on Wall Street today, because he told it like it is.
1. The Republicans have been trying to get rid of social security since the 1930's.
2. The tax cut economic and trickle down free theory don't create long term economic growth. Investing in a country's infrastructure does. Education, roads, high tech jobs, etc..
3. Tax cuts and wars create inflation for a country. Anyone that has taken macro economics knows this. I guess Bush was asleep during economics 101.
4. What America needs to do is increase taxes on the richest 10 and 1%. Including make them pay their share of Social Security taxes for their full income no just on $90,000. All us poor Americans are paying more then they are, so it wouldn't hurt Bill Gates too much to pay his share. He couldn't spend the money he makes in a lifetime and he can't take it with him when he dies.
5. Keep the estate tax because it only will affect the rich, and they inherited the money anyway, so they don't know about doing without. Bush wants to get rid of it but he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
6. The richest 1% have been selling Bullsh*t to Americans for the past 30 years, because they want to bring back the 19th America of low wages, long hours and debtors prison. What a scam.

 

[gherman]

I'm sure financeguy gets just about as big of a kick as I do that we are lumped into the same category.

Yes, it's an important issue, but does Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you.

Ok. You tell me why this isn't a problem and we should just ignore it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst102504.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul217.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://salem-news.com/articles/march152008/hank_oped_3-15-08.php
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/

 

[gherman]

No, it's what the corporatists want you to believe is the biggest issue.

Tell me why this isn't an issue.

 

[BVS]

Ok. You tell me why this isn't a problem and we should just ignore it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst102504.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul217.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://salem-news.com/articles/march152008/hank_oped_3-15-08.php
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/

Ok. You tell me where I said it isn't a problem and we should ignore it?

Read my post again.

 

[gherman]

Ok. You tell me where I said it isn't a problem and we should ignore it?

Read my post again.

You say "Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you"

Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.

 

[BVS]

Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.

Now go back and read the first part of that post.

And go and read ALL the links you provided. They all talk about the same issue, but they don't offer the same conclusions.

Right now we have three canidates all are talking about the same issues(for the most part), but are they offering the same conclusions? Do they attack the issues in the same manner? No.

Go and find out which ones make the most sense. Believe me, Beck isn't the one you need to be listening to...

Take him out of the equation and figure out what we need to do.

 

[U2DMfan]

No, it's what the corporatists want you to believe is the biggest issue.

Corporatists? How do they benefit?

If anything, I think the corporatists would benefit from the collapse of Social Security.

It would basically become privatized by default.

Corporate news media don't even properly cover the story because it bores the ever growing and over-saturated ADD crowd. It doesn't make them money like a good ol' fashioned Jeremiah Wright soundbite or Paris Hilton gaffe.

I think it benefits the fatcats to keep this off the front burner.
What am I missing?

 

[U2DMfan]

I think Beck is largely just another self-righteous moralizer. Nothing worse than a recovering "sinner" who plays the accusatory redeemer. If you've seen him talk about his addictions, you've probably also seen him point out the flaws of anyone else.

That said, Beck didn't even offer up a suggestion as far as I could tell. The way I read it was that Beck was talking about a grotesque inaction on the part of our so-called 'leaders' to do anything about it. I appreciate the fact that somebody at least wants to talk about it. Beats the campaign tit-for-tat bullshit.

Beck is probably as qualified to talk about economics as I am but that doesn't diminish the importance of the subject itself. Just want to go on record, that's what I was agreeing with.

I personally can't stand him for many reasons but I don't know what that has to do with the subject at hand.

 

[BVS]

I think Beck is largely just another self-righteous moralizer. Nothing worse than a recovering "sinner" who plays the accusatory redeemer. If you've seen him talk about his addictions, you've probably also seen him point out the flaws of anyone else.

That said, Beck didn't even offer up a suggestion as far as I could tell. The way I read it was that Beck was talking about a grotesque inaction on the part of our so-called 'leaders' to do anything about it. I appreciate the fact that somebody at least wants to talk about it. Beats the campaign tit-for-tat bullshit.

Beck is probably as qualified to talk about economics as I am but that doesn't diminish the importance of the subject itself. Just want to go on record, that's what I was agreeing with.

I personally can't stand him for many reasons but I don't know what that has to do with the subject at hand.

Yes, but my point is that it's easy to talk(point blame) about two of the govermental programs that will never effect you(as a rich man), while supporting many other economic draining programs, that he does.

 

[U2DMfan]

That's a fair point, BVS.

You won't get me to disagree about his blatant hypocrisy.

 

[boo]

A dinner of dog food is in the future for many Americans.

 

[financeguy]

You say "Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you"

Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.

Well, as luck would have it, there was a good article published in the Financial Times on this very subject just one day after this thread was commenced, I do urge you to read it:-


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8cd794e-fc68-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html

The first American baby boomers have now become eligible to retire and start drawing on Social Security, the government pension programme. Many politicians are telling us that the resulting rise in Social Security "entitlement" payments will break the budget, so we have to cut benefits to retired people. But the politicians do not want to mention that the Social Security system has been compiling a huge surplus. Why? Because they have been using that surplus for years to hide the real size of the current federal budget deficit, allowing them to spend more and justify tax cuts for the wealthy.

US Office of Management and Budget data show that while government's reported deficit averaged about $300bn a year from 2002 to 2006 - roughly $4,000 per household - the real current deficit was actually more than 50 per cent bigger. The government just "borrowed" about $165bn from the Social Security Trust Fund every year - under the table.

In 2007, the real deficit was $449bn according to the OMB. However, the "official" deficit widely reported is only $257bn, because it is government policy to add the borrowed Social Security Trust Fund surplus ($192bn in 2007) to revenues before calculating the "official" deficit that has to be borrowed publicly. The recently passed economic stimulus package of $160bnis reported to raise the 2008 official deficit to about $400bn. But the real deficit in 2008 will be about $600bn.

How does this work? Social Security was initially a pay-as-you-go system - annual payroll taxes of workers covered that year's payments to retired people. By the early 1980s, however, it was clear that this system was not sustainable. Payments were increasing faster than revenues, and when the baby boomers started retiring and collecting pensions, there would be huge shortfalls. President Ronald Reagan had the prudence to address this problem early enough to make Social Security sustainable. He appointed Alan Greenspan to design a massive overhaul of the system, which was implemented.

Social Security was in effect transformed into a national pension plan. Social Security payroll taxes were raised, creating a surplus in the trust fund that would fully cover the future costs of baby-boomer retirement. The payroll tax now puts 12.4 per cent of each worker's wage income into the trust fund (half is paid by the employer, except for the self-employed, who pay the full 12.4 per cent).

The tax is capped and applies to annual income up to $102,000, which includes the lower 85 per cent of income earners. The top 15 per cent of income earners are taxed only on income up to the cap. Millionaires and billionaires pay the same as someone earning $102,000. The cap supported by Reagan was initially set at 90 per cent of income earners, but the changing distribution of income has allowed it to fall to 85 per cent.

Baby boomers, and all others who have worked since 1983, paid in more than needed for Social Security retirement payments. They saved and created the trust fund surplus, which now amounts to more than $2,000bn and must be invested in US Treasury bonds. It is projected to reach nearly $3,000bn in 10 years. Then Social Security will stop generating a surplus to subsidise the rest of the budget and will begin redeeming its bonds to help make payments.

Current projections show that the trust fund bonds may be exhausted by about 2041. The trust fund's full sustainability for at least the next 75 years could be restored easily with minor adjustments, including restoring the income cap to 90 per cent, according to the recently retired commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Politicians understand that, with the Social Security Trust Fund surplus declining, they will no longer be able to borrow from them under the table while announcing fictitiously smaller deficits to justify continued expenditures and tax cuts. And they will have to generate funds from other sources of revenue to redeem the bonds after 2017. Rather than admit too much was borrowed recently, and must now be repaid, they want to reduce Social Security benefits. This puts much of the burden on the middle class, who created most of the surplus that has been used to hide the real size of the deficits.

Fundamentally, the Social Security issue is not one of "entitlements" but of the obligation of our government to honour its debt and not reduce Social Security benefits.

The writer, a former World Bank economist, is an economic consultant

I respect the point of view of economic libertarians such as Ron Paul - they are at least consistent in arguing for reductions in government expenditure not only in social security and other welfare programs, but also in the Milit-Ind complex - but, to me, there's a lot of scaremongering about this issue, and to get a rational analysis it's better to turn to respected economists such as Paul Krugman and others, rather than someone like Glen Beck.

 

[Billy Rotten]

Pardon my language, but you Americans are FUCKED!