It could be that the Government Health Care plan is partially dead. The so-called “Public Option” may be off the table. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to be ever vigilant that they won’t look to “regulate” your private health insurance right out of business anyway. But its a step in the right direction. So, what’s next?
Social Security. That’s right. The Holy Third Rail of politics. President Obama outlined his ideas of reforming Social Security during his coronation and expanded on his plan this summer. It’s a “more taxes now”, “more taxes later”, “problem gets worse” formula. Liberals squeal like piggie in Deliverance when Social Security insolvency is discussed, but a “soak the rich” feature certainly should help mollify. And they will never admit it, but the way the Obama Administration is going about it, they are going to “end Social Security as we know it.” Isn’t that cute? I will explain.
“People who think that they are getting something for nothing, by having government provide what they would otherwise have to buy in the private market, are not only kidding themselves by ignoring the taxes that government has to take from them in order to give them the appearance of something for nothing. They are also ignoring the strings that are going to be attached to their own money when it comes back to them in government benefits.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4589
The mushrooming payments coming due as millions of babyboomers prepare to retire are going to REALLY push the limits of what National Debt the country can carry now that the giant Obama giveaway is fully understood. We simply CANNOT afford to go any deeper into debt. The illusion that Social Security can provide pensions more cheaply than a private retirement plan is the political triumph of leftist illusions and baby boomers are going to pay the price big time.
So what are the choices?
Well, first let’s examine President Obama’s plans. First, he will assess social security taxes on incomes above $250,000. One liberal columnist noted with satisfaction that this will bring the top rates back to where they were in the 70’s, before our economic boom of the last quarter century. Smart, right? According to the Tax Policy Center, Obamas tax policies already are pushing the total tax on labor in those brackets to close to 60%, and in states like California and New York, they will be even higher.
“Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you’d be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html
At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% – 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers – your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. Those of you who consider yourself middle class and paying taxes on $204,000 a year are going to notice that tax hike, aren’t you? And just wait til Obama starts including capital gains and interest on savings. Then the fun will REALLY begin.
President Obama and the Democrats have yet to figure out one significant detail. Are those “rich” paying significantly higher taxes going to get correspondingly higher benefits when they retire? Isn’t that “FAIR”? One of the unassailable features of the Social Security program has always been, the more you pay in, the more you get back. I know I like it when I get my statement. To “unhook” that feature from Social Security in order to maintain its short term viability “Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.” This would end “Social Security as we know it.” I mean, in a welfare program we can decide to cut benefits at any time. As well, according to the Social Security Administration, this only makes up about a third of the expected shortfall Social Security is going to see in the coming baby boom retirement. Now, here’s where it gets worse.
The more taxes the Obama plan collects, the worse shape Social Security is in. Collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund relies on the U.S. redeeming the Treasury bonds the “lockbox” holds. Understand? And there’s only one place the money to redeem those bonds comes from – more taxes plus interest. Pay for President Obamas Social Security plan today, pay for it again in 20 years. Sweet!
I don’t get it. Why is there a picture of George W. Bush at the top of this post?
#1: Because this whole post shows about as much intelligence as Dubya has, maybe even less (is that possible?)
Terry stays true to his usual mode of writing, containing only completely incoherent rambling.
#2,
Sorry to see another liberal having a Pelosi moment. Can’t blame you tho. Details have never been the lefts strong suit.
Looking at the economics of it, we see that medicare will become a large part of the budget. I believe more than 50% will go to benefits alone. That can not be sustained without some changes. The true issue at hand is ethics in buisness. Conservites want less government, but because of poor choices, have to be spanked by government. When children misbehave, more parenting is required. If we had a health insurance program, private or not, that behaved in such a manner that its customers were the priority, no one would complain. If people in buisness follow ethical behavior, no parenting would be required. In other words, no government intervention required. I guess you can say, poor ethical choices equals big government.
Social security is a wealth transfer system in which working people support retired people. If recognizing that fact ‘ends social security as we know it,’ that only means we have corrected our perception.
#3: That is all you can come up with??? No surprise that you don’t even want to use a name here.
Typical for right-wing nut cases.
Just FYI: I lean libertarian. But I despise people who lie.
Well, calling someone a liar without pointing out the lie makes you a coward. Despise yourself.
Oh, and FYI, I highly doubt the Libertarian lingo, or you wouldn’t be shilling for a socialist ponzi scheme.
This TRUE Libertarian says “It ain’t freedom if I can’t ignore it”.
If we had a health insurance program, private or not, that behaved in such a manner that its customers were the priority, no one would complain. If people in buisness follow ethical behavior, no parenting would be required. In other words, no government intervention required. I guess you can say, poor ethical choices equals big government.
Yeah, customers are really the priority, when it comes to the: Post Office, DMV, Public Schools.
May be the Government needs its own wee spanky on the bum or maybe a good kick up the (well ya know)!
Look at government more in terms of a lion, waiting to pounce on the weak.
You see businessess have gone weak. They bend over on a regular basis and take it up the bum, from the union’s. Then they listen to idiots like Barney Frank, telling them to do more for the poor or else!
So i would question who is acting unethical and who is trying to accumulate money like Rodents saving their nuts for winter?
#8: And what exactly am I “shilling” for, pray tell???
I haven’t said anything about social security. I have just commented on Terry’s incoherent rambling. In fact, Terry’s post is wrong on facts, as far as I can make out anything he says.
And since when is pointing out that somebody is knowingly posting BS “shilling”? May I suggest you look up the meaning of that word??? You would learn something.
#9:
Yeah, customers are really the priority, when it comes to the: Lehman Brothers, AIG, subprime mortgage lenders, General Motors, etc.
Oh, and #*:
I didn’t say I am libertarian, I said I lean libertarian.
I don’t follow ANY party line. I think for myself. Unlike you, I don’t blabber something just because some party bigwig, or some TV or radio personality with an inflated ego, tells me what to think.
I use my brain. You should do as well, it is very liberating.
That was for #8, of course…
Wow!! you guys need to calm down! I am a SS recipient. #5, I appreciate your appraisal of the SS system and its funding source. Your tone seems a little bit shall we say, confrontational. I and many other ‘recipients’ of SS don’t feel the money we recieve from the government is a social handout or a ‘wealth transfer’ as you state. We transferred quite alot of our ‘wealth’ into the SS system when we worked. The fact that the government chose to divert the funds to other uses essentially causing a ponzi like scenario to occur was not my individual choice. The government has an ‘obligation’ to all of the citizens who have supported the SS system with their ‘wealth’ contributions to it. As you contribute so do you. Rest assured that when you reach retirement age you won’t want to hear someone tell you that the money you are receiving is from their ‘wealth’ either. If you have a better plan. Let’s hear it. Your ‘end game’ for the current mess (SS) better be a good one.
#12
I’m sure its very liberating following the rest of the lemmings. I’ve read the article, and you dont seem to be able to deal with reality.
The details of Obamas plan are found elsewhere, the payroll taxes are correct, the % of taxes paid on families making over 250,000 is not in dispute.
Again, if you actually dispute certain facts, put em up, or shut up.
“A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.”
From wikepedia.
I’d say someone who calls any critique of Social Security “lies” without providing any details is a shill.
#16: And another red herring.
Where exactly did I call “any critique” of Social Security a lie???
Typical distortion by a right-wing nut.
I called Terry’s post rambling bovine fecal matter.
You obviously are in dire need of an education, since you can’t even seem to read. And it is you who is a lemming, following rambling right-wing nuts.