Bush pushes for spending control

CNN ^ | Janu8ary 3, 2007

[aLurker]

You, like your invented number, are full of bullship. It's no wonder you can't understand how your wife can save money by spending it. 35 TRILLION over what time period, the next 1,000 years.

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) requires that the government calculate a standard type of unfunded liability called a 'closed-group liability.' The closed-group measure assumes that Social Security and Medicare will be closed to all new entrants. It then determines what today's workers and retirees are due to receive in future benefits over and above what those same workers and retirees are due to pay in future contributions.

My source for the 35 trillion was an article at Vanguard: Interview: Can you count on Social Security?

"Professor Mitchell: The current unfunded liability of Social Security is about $11 trillion. That is the additional money needed to pay current promised benefits. By contrast, Medicare's unfunded liabilities are gargantuan, about $66 trillion. It is ironic that when Medicare Part D, the drug bill, passed, this boosted Medicare's underfunding problem by about $35 trillion. Yet this was never mentioned when the bill was passed―by either political party."

While I'm sure there are a lot of assumptions about the rate of increase in Medicare costs and in future payroll taxes collected, which make that figure little more than a very rough guess (I'm no accountant) we've got enough history with the federal government's entitlement spending estimates to know that they seldom underestimate costs.

But I don't need to be an accountant to know that this massive new drug entitlement isn't going to be offset by reductions in Medicare spending overall--that just fails the smell test!

[Clinging Bitterly]

We can hope.

[savedbygrace]

The line item veto requires a Constitutional Amendment, because the USSC said so when a Republican congress gave it to Clinton.

If letters and calls to Congress don't work too well, then it's all over but the shouting. If our elected representatives don't respond to their constituents, then it's pointless to hold elections.

Also, I disagree with your statement, "something is better than nothing". For the most part, I hold the opposite to be true. Not because there aren't problems, but because the federal government's solutions are nearly always wrong.

There are no real political solutions to the ills of this country (and the world). There is only corrupt power wielded.

[savedbygrace]

Thank you. I think there are a lot of people who know what I said is true.

In the party meetings I've attended, they practiced the Delphi technique to insure nothing but their pre-ordained platform items were passed, and their people placed in party positions. The Delphi.

[savedbygrace]

Now that I've had my say, I'll stop. You get the last word.

[PhiKapMom]

I know exactly what you are talking about. Trying to change a party structure with new ideas and wanting ethics can give you all kinds of harassment. I know because I have been the recipient of the harassment for well over a year and cannot wait to give up a County Party position.

I have gone back to the Women's Club as their President without the harassment. Some of our County Party people are downright nasty and no one does anything.

[Go_Raiders]

I'm sorry, I don't agree that the deficit is only 2.1 percent of GDP.

Social Security is being used to drastically skew this ratio. According to the 2.1% crowd, the Social Security system is contributing a "surplus" to the general budget.

That "surplus" is actually a swirling vortex of debt, as no account is currently taken of the projected cost to fund the bloated payoffs to retirees. (Yes, AARP-holes, I said bloated).

Bush could have told the truth, and maybe had an outside chance of properly restructuring Social Security, but as with almost everything else he has put his hand to, it was a total botch.

You can go on convincing yourself of how small the deficit is. Keep in touch, you can show me how wrong I was when we look back 30 years from now. That is, if we haven't been euthanized to rebalance the budget.

[hodaka]

It's about time again for him to push for an amendment to ban gay marriage.

[ClaireSolt]

You watch. Your argument can be used to raise Social Security taxes to produce more surpluses to get mixed into general accounts. Nobody has ever separated the trust fund. That is just campaign rhetoric.