I'm surprised nobody continued the previous thread sooner. Probably a better place to discuss this than the Obama thread.
No one cares anymore?
Pretty much, its a done deal and unlike Rover I think its going to make things worse not better. Get it done, the sooner the better is all that seems to matter. Does it deal with rising health care costs? Why is it delayed to 2014? if its going to save money, shouldn't we start saving now?
For something as big as this shouldn't the gov't have to prove that it can do what it says before we give over full control?
The gov't is already 0-2 when it comes to entitlement programs. Why should they get a third?
Just curious, but what is your problem with Social Security?
Regarding walrus' question, there is an effort to speed up certain provisions of the law, but some others will take time to set up (exchanges, public option, etc).
Not talking about parts of the bill, I'm talking the whole thing, why is it set to go into affect in 2014 when it could be saving us money now?
I'm surprised nobody continued the previous thread sooner. Probably a better place to discuss this than the Obama thread.
But if the boomers live longer due to better health care, they will drain the SS system dry sooner.He can speak for himself, but I'm guessing it might have to do with the "Social Security running out of funds" issue that's on the horizon.
I think that'll end up being an overblown issue. Once the boomers start kicking the bucket, our population growth trends will normalize everything.
Again with how you can't set all of this stuff up overnight....
But if the boomers live longer due to better health care, they will drain the SS system dry sooner.
Now, how to prevent that from happening...........
Death panels.
Lipstick!
But if the boomers live longer due to better health care, they will drain the SS system dry sooner.
Now, how to prevent that from happening...........
Just curious, but what is your problem with Social Security?
For starters, its bankrupt.
And it's basically a glorified Ponzi scheme.
For starters, its bankrupt.
Both dumb Republican talking points with no basis in reality.
Ponzi schemes aren't paid for. That's why they collapse. Social Security has a dedicated revenue stream that will keep the program solvent for over 100 years and would have even more had the surpluses been reinvested in the program.
Next, its not bankrupt at all. Not only is it running surplus, a few simple tweaks to the formula to pay for an unprecedented # of retirees due to demographics keeps the program up and running.
Here lies the problem with conservatives. Its sorta the "sky is purple because I say it is" attitude devoid of all facts and reasoning that we've seen over the last 8 years out of the right. That's why we can all be thankful people like that are no longer in power in this country.
1) Its funded exactly like a Ponzi scheme. Its schuffles money from one person to another today without having any true returns.
2) Fully bankrupt by 2037 - taking in less than expenditures in 2016 (at the latest; some estimates give it two years)
3) Social Security and Medicare currently account for $53 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
The fact is that if we don't do something about these programs to reign in their spending the country will go bankrupt. The gov't has proven that it is completely incapable of running any kind of entitlement program and to give them another one will simply drive this country into bankruptcy faster.
Ponzi schemes aren't paid for. That's why they collapse. Social Security has a dedicated revenue stream that will keep the program solvent for over 100 years and would have even more had the surpluses been reinvested in the program.
1) Nooooo MinnFan, again a Ponzi scheme (like Madoff's) is claiming to have money it doesn't possess. Social Security actually has the dedicated revenues, something a Ponzi scheme doesn't.