Join The Debate!

1 trillion won't fix social security

Lydia writes:

The one trillion we just droped into Iraq could have boosted the Social Security program
====================
First, we can't spend the money on social security because Congress won't change the laws regarding social security. We have to borrow to fund our defense and social programs.

But, all of defense, including Iraq, all the other actions, Navy, Air-force and troops in places like Germany, So. Korea, and Japan are part of the spending in the last 4 years.

For this year, the budget for all the department of defense is $495 billion and smaller than the budget for Social Security and also smaller than the budget for human services.
quote:
Department of Defense--Military $491 Billion 58.7% Growth since 2001
Department of Health and Human Services $697 Billion 60% Growth since 2001
=========================
as you can see, the Defense growth is rapid due to the dilapidated condition it was in when Bush took office, but still less than Health and Human services growth.

We need more spending on defense and we need to see the mission in Iraq through. We need to cut spending in the social programs because at the federal level they are ineffective and inefficient. They would bankrupt this nation if not a dime was spent on defense because they are tied to mandatory spending increases that no Congress is willing to deal with.

Social security is 12% of our wages and yet, 4% is all that is needed for a worker paying for his own retirement in government bonds, which the trust fund surplus buys when it loans the funds to general revenue.

We have an $84 trillion unfunded liability for social security and Medicare and you think $1 trillon is going to fix it?

Quote:
This year's annual reports for Social Security and Medicare show the combined unfunded liability of these programs is $84 trillion in today's dollars — up more than $7 trillion from last year's report. The unfunded liability identifies the difference between what has been promised to current and future generations above what will be collected in taxes. Social Security and Medicare will consume an ever-increasing portion of workers' incomes unless the government either breaks its promises to future retirees or makes significant changes to our elderly entitlement programs.
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/new/pub/ba/ba560/
===================================

Don't try and use socialst talking points that are distorted, unreliable and just smoke and mirrors to hide the problem they created with veering away from FDR's plan of workers funding their own retirement, not current retirees.

Remember, FDR planned on government paying from payroll taxes only long enough for the first retirees who hadn't paid in for most of their work life, to die. The rest of the workers would pay in for their own retirement.

quote: (FDR's speech when he began social security
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335740/posts
===================================

Now, 22 tax increases later, and 10 times that the inflows were less than outflows, we are having to "fix" it again. It is a ponzi scheme that no amount of fixing under the current program will help.

That is why both parties are talking about 100-200 legal immigrants. They believe that is the number needed to offset the 77 million that will retire and on average use the system for 35 years. That is over 1/2 the current workforce and we have dropped from 16 workers to each retiree to 3 workers for each retiree due to longevity increases for the most part. Now that that longevity is expected to jump as much as 20 years in the next couple of decades, we are facing that $84 trillion problem and you are saying $1 trillion will fix it?

This administration has done many things that are socislist in nature. But, so will the Democrats and even more. Each of the spending binges this administration has embarked on out side of the needed defense spending, is matched by a plan of the Democrats and while a slightly different plan the spending is as much and more in most cases.

Ask them how they plan to pay for their spending, which they openly admit will be as much when cornered and they say, "We'll cut defense and tax the top 2% even though they know they can't.

They get the voters to believe they can tax business and the top 2% and yet every nation that has tried it drove the tax revenues down as business and the wealthy either left or the wealthy did what Sen. Kerry openly admits he did. They move it into tax free securities and pay no tax on that income.

So, tell me how they will do a better job of spending and tax revenues when they admit they will spend more and initiate policies that lower tax revenues.

The brag about the tax increase under Clinton and how much good it did. Let's look at that record and how it affected business, our jobs, our wages, our tax revenues as those policies took hold. Remember it takes as much as 2 or 3 years for tax and business policy to show their effect. But here is job growth under Clinton.

Quote:

Gross Domestic Product has expanded six consecutive quarters and industrial production grew in 2002. But total non-farm payroll employment has declined by 2.1 million jobs since its peak in March 2001, leading critics to pin the decrease on President Bush and to describe the current economic situation as a “jobless recovery.”

But closer examination of the employment data shows that if blame is to be awarded, it should go to ex-President Clinton.
Snip================
Job losses are concentrated in the economy’s manufacturing private industry sector, which peaked in April 1998 on Clinton’s watch. In the ensuing five years, 2.6 million manufacturing jobs (14 percent) have disappeared.
snip------------------------
Nondurable manufacturing employment peaked at 7.9 million workers in January 1995. Components that peaked under Clinton included: food and kindred products (October 1995); textile mill products (November 1994); printing and publishing (May 1998); and rubber and miscellaneous plastics (February 2000). Many of these jobs were once concentrated in the South.

Durable manufacturing peaked at 11.2 million workers in April 1998. Components that peaked under Clinton included: lumber and wood (February 2000); furniture and fixtures (July 2000); primary metals (January 1998); fabricated metals (July 2000); industrial machinery and equipment (March 1998); electronic and other electrical equipment (November 2000); transportation equipment (October 1998); instruments and related products (March 1998); and miscellaneous manufacturing (April 1998). Some of the largest durables goods employment is in the upper Midwest.
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-kaza051603.asp
=======================================

Notice those dates and how long before Clinton left office the problems were growing. The recession that was predicted before George Bush ever started his campaign came true. How did they know there was going to be a recession? Simple. They looked at the Clinton policies and saw what they were causing. Job growth was in a freefall before G.W. ever took office. That doesn't mean jobs weren't being created but that the rate was dropping like a rock until jobs were lost.

They use 2000 as the start of the rapid loss in Job growth as if 2000 was Bush's year. That was Clinton's year since Bush was elected in 2000 but didn't take office until 2001. The recession was a Clinton generated recession and it takes about 3 years to get policies in place and then they have an effect which is exactly what happened.

Now I don't agree with the types of tax cuts because they weren't on Business Income like other nations are doing to make their businesses competitive but they are all the Democrats with their filibuster power and the voters (we have become quite socialist about taxes) would allow. Still they helped but I don't see them being a long lasting aid.

The "politicians" talk about economic cycles and how we have up and down periods and seldom do they last more than four or five years. Yet, other nations have had steady growth for over a decade using capitalism, tax cuts, decentrailization, deregulation and simplier tax codes that reduce compliance costs.