Consideration required
 

On 2/2/10 9:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



Easy enough to fix...just raise the withholding on those with incomes
over a certain amount. Dan Krueger here boats about making $27,000 a
month...hell, raise his medicare and SS withholding to $5000 a month. He
can afford to pay more. :)

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time to
fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

Harry wrote:
On 2/2/10 9:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



Easy enough to fix...just raise the withholding on those with incomes
over a certain amount. Dan Krueger here boats about making $27,000 a
month...hell, raise his medicare and SS withholding to $5000 a month.
He can afford to pay more. :)


Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the
benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send
him to an early retirement.

Consideration required
 

On 2/2/10 8:34 PM, Bruce wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 2/2/10 9:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



Easy enough to fix...just raise the withholding on those with incomes
over a certain amount. Dan Krueger here boats about making $27,000 a
month...hell, raise his medicare and SS withholding to $5000 a month.
He can afford to pay more. :)


Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the
benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send
him to an early retirement.


Krueger's pimping isn't hard work.

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:44:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time to
fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed.


If you consider 5 years a long time I suppose you are right about
Social Security but medicare is broke now. They are printing money to
fund it.


Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but SS is positive until
something like 2040, then it will be taking in less than it spends. Medicare
is less well off. I believe they're predicting 2020 when it run out of money
if not refunded.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:09:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:44:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Your numbers for Medicare are way off.

Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the
government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money)


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming
in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like
Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is
the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential
growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the
boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people
will be coming for money that doesn't exist.



All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time
to
fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed.


If you consider 5 years a long time I suppose you are right about
Social Security but medicare is broke now. They are printing money to
fund it.


Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but SS is positive until
something like 2040, then it will be taking in less than it spends.
Medicare
is less well off. I believe they're predicting 2020 when it run out of
money
if not refunded.

I am getting my numbers from SSA.GOV, the trustees report. I posted a
link in this thread.

From that link
"Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current
program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income
over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay
about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise
only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits
beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The
deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves
are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient
to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.
Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008,
Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out
more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it
receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be
made up by redeeming trust fund assets"

The 2016-2017 number is when it is giving out more than it takes in.
In the 2011-2012 timeframe the surplus peak and will start declining.
When it gives out more than it takes in they say they will be
redeeming the bonds but we all know that is simply printing money
(adding to the deficit) because there is no real money there. We have
been spending every cent of the surplus since 1940 and putting an IOU
in the box..
That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time
the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really
redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not
that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by
printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar.



If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:20:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time
the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really
redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not
that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by
printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar.



If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers?


The fantasy is that US bonds are actually worth anything in 2037 if we
actually started cashing this many of them in 2016.
It is like Bill Gates' net worth. Most of it is in Microsoft stock but
if he really sold much of it, the stock would crash before he sold a
third of it.


Ok, but in any case, we have time to fix Medicare.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:30:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:20:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time
the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really
redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not
that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by
printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar.



If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers?


The fantasy is that US bonds are actually worth anything in 2037 if we
actually started cashing this many of them in 2016.
It is like Bill Gates' net worth. Most of it is in Microsoft stock but
if he really sold much of it, the stock would crash before he sold a
third of it.


Ok, but in any case, we have time to fix Medicare.

But we are borrowing money until we do. They are already upside down.
That is why Obama wants to find a way to get a half billion out of
their budget. AARP is livid, They were all in favor of medical reform
(since they are basically an insurance company) but the "ox" that pays
their bills is getting gored.


At this point in the financial recovery, it would be suicide to tighten
belts.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:12:54 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media,
healthcare industry, etc.

NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during
the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast
airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription.


You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed
heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Problem was the Democrat controlled Congress. After the agreed tax cuts,
the economy soared. Unfortunately Congress increased spending even more
than a soaring economy could support. Sort of like Clinton's time.

you mean the last time we had a balanced budget? that why you hate
clinton:?

Consideration required
 

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:43:45 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
et...
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:30:11 -0800, CalifBill wrote:


The national debt story.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Only part of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms


Yes your link is only part of the story. The debt includes all that
borrowed SS money.


actually reagan proposed budgets that differed little in spending
compared to the democrats. he just wanted to spend it on the military