Sen. Kerry: "The real problem for our country... is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid"

[MannyGoldstein]

From Sunday's Meet the Press interview with one of the 12 members of Congress who'll figure out how to solve our fully-fake deficit crisis:

“And the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It’s the long-term debt. It’s the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation.”

This is a very surprising and disturbing statement. Particularly since I called Kerry’s office a couple of weeks ago (he's my Senator) and they swore he was against any sort of Social Security cuts at all. We sure don't need to start cutting it today, if ever.

http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html">Social Security has zero solvency problems, unless we assume that the economy is about to get even worse and stay that way for decades. Even then, if very bad things happen to our economy, it’s perfectly fine for more than two decades.

Medicare/Medicaid don’t have problems, either. Rather, the problem is with runaway health care costs. If our costs are brought in line with the rest of the industrialized world, then Medicare and Medicare are perfectly fine. Otherwise we harm all Americans with punishing health care costs, and make our businesses uncompetitive when they pay for health care.

Once again, even Democrats like Kerry see working Americans as easier targets than the people actually causing these problems

This is not good at all.

[polichick]

1. Well, one BIG problem is that the trust fund has been plundered.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. No, it's been loaned, and the loans are backed by the

full faith and credit of the United States.

[indurancevile]

8. +1.

[Cool Logic]

17. It has still been spent...

You make the mistake of believing that Social Security has $2.6 trillion of assets without examining and realizing that these assets predominately consist of receivables from the general fund (Tbonds). Furthermore, these receivables aren't collectible unless more taxes are collected from the people who anted up the missing $2.6 trillion in the first place.

All to often I read or hear news of someone being swindled. Most of the schemes employed are so simplistic and obvious in nature, that it is beyond my realm of comprehension how someone could have fallen for it.

American workers have been swindled out $2.6 trillion and many of will not realize it until its too late.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Do you feel that the Chinese and other T-Bill holders have been

similarly swindled?

[Cool Logic]

25. Do you know where the money comes from that services the bonds?

That's right, from American workers who pay taxes.

The key to comprehending the subject is to conceptualize American workers as investors in the SSTF. The SSTF trustees takes this cash and gives it to Congress in exchange for Treasury Bonds. Congress then takes the money and spends it. However, Congress refuses to combine these activities with the general fund and treats it as an off-balance sheet liability.

Nevertheless, a liability it is. And American workers must ante up another $2.6 Trillion, so "service" this liability.

With all due respect, the distinction between liquid assets and those secured by debt, is pretty significant. Regrettably, many Americans do not understand that. I'm not sure if you do either.

[polichick]

30. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

[closeupready]

61. The annual US GDP is, what, $15Trillion? Eliminate the cap, and voila,

problem solved. Even if nothing is done, SS is healthy through 2039, and past that, can pay 75% of bennies onward.

[Cool Logic]

73. So, it doesn't bother you that Congress uses off-balance-sheet accounting

to mask the effect of SS on the deficit?

[closeupready]

75. Congress' doings in favor of their "campaign financiers" bothers me far more than anything else.

Tackle this corruption, and that's an even bigger problem solved, IMO.

But aside from that, the fact that our GDP is so huge and the obligations you state are relatively small, no I'm not particularly bothered by this kind of obfuscation.

[Cool Logic]

85. "Tackle this corruption,..."

Indeed, that is the crux of the problem. But I ask you, whose pockets do you think that $2.6T landed in?

That's right, it went to those who are rich and powerful enough to have a couple of floors of K-Street boys and girls writing the laws that Congress passes.

Do you really think they need any more of our money?

Off-balance-sheet accounting was bad for Enron, and it is bad for the fedgov.

[indurancevile]

122. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968)

the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget."

This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html.

[Cool Logic]

128. "But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting

practices.

Indeed...and the logical extension of that statement is as follows:

But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of employing legal, or illegal accounting practices.

However, since the rules of reality do not apply to the fedgov, the People are forced to accept the fact that their Representatives employ Enron style accounting practices.

We saw the effect of off-balance-sheet accounting on Enron's employee retirement plan. Why anyone would support the fedgov's policy of employing the same accounting practices is beyond my realm of comprehension.

[indurancevile]

135. i think you don't understand what on & off budget means.

On-budget means revenues & expenditures are accounted as though they were part of general revenues.

Off-budget means they are treated as independent accounts, not as part of general spending.

Off-budget doesn't mean "hidden". The numbers are right out in the open, both in the budget and in the yearly SS Trustees' reports. You can access them on-line, and before the internet you could access them at the public library. Congress obviously could access them too.

When SS began it was accounted off-budget, rightly so as a program with its own dedicated revenue stream and purpose.

The innovation was to put it ON-BUDGET, as Johnson did to mask Vietnam deficits.

That was changed in the 90s.

Currently it is officially accounted OFF-BUDGET, yet discussed in the media as though it were ON-BUDGET, as though SS revenues were general revenues & SS expenditures were general expenditures.

So you have it exactly backwards.

And the accounting practice is irrelevant to the chicanery of our political, media & financial class, all of whom have discussed SS in a way intended to mislead the public for decades.

[Cool Logic]

145. Yes, the numbers are in plain view for all to see...

at least for those who are willing to actually have a look.

When a worker deposits $1 into the SSTF, the SSTF has a $1 liability. When the SSTF transfers the $1 to the general fund, the $1 is no longer a liability of the SSTF, but an amount held in "trust." This means that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget, i.e., off-budget. SS is in an off-balance sheet obligation. Such obligations were part of the accounting fraud at Enron.

When SS was implemented, the money the participants paid was deposited into the independent SSTF, rather than into the general fund. It was understood that this money would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other government program. However, our government spends Social Security funds by transferring the money into the general fund. Essentially, this amounts to raising taxes without explicit legislation, and it has allowed the the Congress to *consume* the $2.6T SSTF over the years.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the White House.

[indurancevile]

148. "When SS was implemented, the money...was deposited into the independent SSTF" = bs.

nothing has changed in the handling of ss monies.

In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law.

The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today. Specifically, the 1935 Act stated: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States." (See Title II, Section 201of the 1935 law)

In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)

In other words, a formal trust fund was established for the Social Security program and the credits already on the Treasury's books for the Social Security program were to be transferred to this Fund, along with all future revenues raised for the program.

The investment procedures adopted in 1939 were modified only slightly from those in the original Act of 1935. Basically, changes were made in the interest rate rules governing the investments, and the Managing Trustee was designated as the investing official (who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury in any case), but in most other respects the language was similar to that in the original law. (See the text of the 1939 Amendments for more details.)

Trust funds are not exclusive to the Social Security program, nor were they new with its passage. At the present time, there are somewhere in excess of 150 different trust funds managed by the federal government. At the time of the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 there were already in existence two major trust funds--those involved in the Civil Service Retirement System and the Government Life Insurance Fund established to insure World War I soldiers and their families. Trust funds have often been displayed separately in the federal budget, although their precise treatment has varied over time.

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

The first social security payment was made in 1940.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/imf.html



You are simply wrong, and the disinformation you spread is a distration from the real issue.

[Yo_Mama]

108. SS is not healthy through 2039

That's why it is so significant that the special bonds in the SS fund are not either
A) Already floated debt that the market has absorbed, or
B) An external source of assets that can be converted to money directly.

Since both Medicare and SS are running at a cash flow deficit - Medicare for years, SS started last year - Congress needs to raise taxes now to cover the cash flow deficit, or it needs to borrow the money.

Since our annual deficits are above 1 trillion now, the reason we had the whole debt limit crisis thingie was that it was going to be a credit issue. And it was.

If SS and Medicare hadn't given their excess proceeds to the general fund, but had actually bought Treasuries on the market, our Current Debt Held by the Public would be much larger, and future borrowing would be constrained, and our annual budgets would have looked much worse for the last thirty years (probably restraining spending), but you would be correct that SS would be healthy through 2038 or 2039 or thereabouts. Congress wouldn't need to borrow more money.

As it is, we can only pay back the bulk of those trust funds by raising taxes, and that is why it is a problem now. We have borrowed so much that in a few years our ability to borrow more will be very restricted.

Think of it this way. Any country has a limited ability to borrow. When government debt goes above 80% things get dicey, and when government debt goes above 100% governments usually default on their debt. We are about at that 100% including the SS trust funds. However that total amount doesn't include our current deficit or next year's deficit or the very large deficits projected for the next few years. Therefore, because the bulk of the SS trust will need to be redeemed (debt issued on the market) AFTER we reach 95% of GDP as public debt, we will not be able to borrow the funds.

[closeupready]

114. SS is solvent through at least 2038, according to last week's claim from Congressional Budget Office

>> A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that the Social Security trust fund is actually in better shape than previously thought. CBO now projects the trust fund won’t run out until 2038, a slight improvement over previous estimates and a reassuring reminder of the fund’s solvency for the next several decades. In the ongoing battle over deficit reduction, Republicans have insisted on deep cuts to Social Security, even though the program doesn’t contribute to the deficit.<<

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/05/289201/cbo-social-security-trust-fund-solvent-through-2039/

And as to raising taxes, no problem as far as I'm concerned. If we eliminate the cap and raise taxes on the wealthiest, we would have absolutely no problem paying the bondholders and our creditors.

[Yo_Mama]

116. Trust fund solvency is not ability-to-pay solvency

It is important to understand that, because those who are pretending it is are in fact the worst enemies of SS. And I don't think we can afford to lose the program.

You and I do not disagree - we both think the US should raise taxes on the wealthy to perform on the SS promise.

But unless you understand that we need to raise taxes NOW to cover it, then you are part of the problem. The "funds" of SS and Medicare are pretty much just promises to pay rather than a source of funds with which to pay SS benefits.

The other thing that is crucial is to make sure that whatever new funding is raised for SS, the resulting revenue stream should be segregated and used only for SS. Also, we should change the way those funds are handled - any new funds that result in temporary overages to the fund should be placed outside the government in federally insured bank deposits, or used to buy real Treasury bonds.

We cannot let our government use SS any more to fund tax decreases for the wealthy or spending for other purposes.

[indurancevile]

139. Yes. income taxes should be raised on the top 1% so they can pay back the

last 10 years of tax cuts & so that the general budget can pay back the money it borrowed from SS.

SS taxes should not be raised. That just gives the top bracket -- people who make their money from investments, not from wages -- so therefore don't pay SS taxes -- more slush money.

[joeglow3]

79. As a CPA, if I did accounting the way the Federal government does...

...I would be stripped of my license for fraud.

[Yo_Mama]

117. Indeed n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

86. In ALL cases (SS Trust, Chinese bondholder, other bondholder), taxpayers service & repay the bonds,

...just as in ALL cases, the taxpayers initially benefited by receiving the initial loan from the bondholder (whether that bondholder was the SS Trust fund, the Chinese, or any other bondholder).


With the exception of payroll taxes, which go to the SS trust funds, the primary source of tax revenue is, of course, income taxes.


The net result, then, of the payroll tax surpluses being loaned to the Treasury is this:

- - - (1) During the initial era of SS surpluses, during which surpluses are loaned to the Treasury, these loans finance deficits in the non-SS portion of the combined budget (the largest item of which is defense). Because of this borrowing, it was possible to finance simultaneous wars not only without raising income taxes, but while actually cutting income tax rates for the wealthy, among other things. Regardless of whatever the funds were spent on, the burden on income tax payers was LIGHTER during the era of SS surpluses than it would have been without borrowing. In other words, if the funds had not been borrowed from the SS Trust Fund, it would not have been possible to spend the amount spent without either raising taxes, or borrowing more from OTHER bondholders (such as the Chinese, or European or American investors), or by printing money.

- - - (2) During the coming era, when the SS Trust Fund will need to redeem the Treasury bonds to meet expenses, the effect will be the exact reverse: that is, income tax payers will have to pay higher taxes (than if they did not have to repay these bonds). The only other alternatives would be borrowing more from OTHER bondholders, or cutting other non-SS spending (such as defense), running the printing presses, defaulting on the SS held bonds, or defaulting on the SS-held bonds surreptitiously by cutting SS benefits to levels that would not require the bonds to be redeemed. (This latter is what the actual underlying strategy of the corporate uberlords appears to be.)



In any event, the above effects is THE SAME, whether we are talking about Chinese bond-holders, SS Trust Fund bonholders, Europoean bondholders, domestic bondholders, or anyone else.

But it is only the SS Trust Fund bondholders that the right wing thinks can be conned successfully. They are NOT suggesting conning the Chinese or anyone else.


Many have argued that because "we owe it to ourselves" that the best way to handle the issue is to not repay the SS Trust Fund. But that ignores the fact that Step 1. involved the use of payroll taxes to finance budgetary items that were and are the responsibility of income tax payers, and that because of the loan of these payroll taxes to the Treasury, income tax rates for the uberlords were slashed to unsustainable, historically low levels (during a time of multiple wars, no less).


The reality is not that "we owe it to ourselves", but that those who benefited from historically low income tax rates since 1980 (and even during a time of simultaneous wars) OWE IT TO THE PAYROLL TAX PAYERS WHO FINANCED THOSE DEFICITS FOR ALL THESE YEARS.





But the uberlords do NOT want to honor the funded beneficiary obligations of those payroll tax-payers who have financed $2.3 trillion dollars of general fund expenses over the years. That is, they want to permanently steal the SS Trust Fund to allow continuation of otherwise unsustainable income tax rates for the uberlords.


That is the bottom line.

[Yo_Mama]

109. Excellent post, but one clarification

The reason repaying the SS trust funds will be hard is because we are borrowing past our ability to carry the debt over the next five years. Therefore, when time comes to redeem most of these bonds, the borrowing will not be an option.

With government borrowing, it's who comes first. And the way this scam was set up, the SS funds come last. So we won't be able to to borrow the money to pay the retirees. It's not that the government would preferentially pay the Chinese or current bondholders (a substantial portion of whom are pension funds), it's that we will have maxed out our Sovereign Borrowing Card by the time the bulk of the funds is needed to support the retirees.

So if you make the argument, Default on the Chinese, and pay off the SS bondholders, the problem is that once you have defaulted on those who already lent you money, no one will lend you more money.

That leaves us with only one option - to sharply raise tax rates, and the problem is that the projected eventual deficit is so big that many doubt we can cover it by raising taxes.

I think we can cover SS, but we should be raising taxes now if we intend to do it. Politicians don't want to do this, so they are lying to everyone. But the truth is there, and the truth is obvious.

[Faryn Balyncd]

110. good points

[Cool Logic]

115. "...just as in ALL cases, the taxpayers initially benefited..."

Not in ALL cases...for if it were so, we would not see the concentration of wealth that exists among the top 1%. Clearly, some benefited more than others.

if the funds had not been borrowed from the SS Trust Fund, it would not have been possible to spend...

Well, that is the crux of the matter, eh? The problem is that money is power; or alternately, a means to acquire power. Thus, when politicians, whose sole objective is to acquire power, have the ability to spend, they will. You seem to be suggesting that the only options we had were to either spend or tax. However, there was another, preferred option--DO NOT SPEND.

I can think of a few things that were not necessary expenditures...and they all being with the letter W.

If our government had been managed by people actually cared about the People, they would have evaluated and adjusted to the factor of Boomer demographics. But the People's Representatives didn't care about that. The only thing they were concerned with was how to enhance their own goddamn power.

But it is only the SS Trust Fund bondholders that the right wing thinks can be conned successfully.

If some of the responses in this thread are any indication, they might be right.

The reality is not that "we owe it to ourselves", but that those who benefited from historically low income tax rates since 1980

The logical effect of that statement suggests that Boomers will just have to do work a little longer, so that they can "pay themselves back." For were not Boomers the beneficiaries of historically low income tax rates since 1980?

[Scuba]

87. The tax revenue should also come from American and foreign "owners" who are reaping...

...record profits but being taxed at a lower rate (capital gains) than American "workers".

[Cool Logic]

129. Forgive me, but how do capital gains factor into the SSFT equation...?

[indurancevile]

141. Social security taxes on WORKERS were raised; capital gains taxes on OWNERS

were lowered.

The main beneficiaries of the bush tax cuts were OWNERS -- the top 1%, who make most of their money from capital, not from wages.

So people suggest raising SS taxes MORE to "save" social security, they are suggesting letting the OWNERS get away with their heist & the WORKERS pay yet again.

[Cool Logic]

143. "they are suggesting letting the OWNERS get away with their heist & the WORKERS pay yet again."

And who do you think is responsible for that?

That's right, the D & R Financial Group of DC.

I have no problem with raising taxes on the top 1%, 2%, or whatever; however, I believe it is a bad idea to mix other forms of taxation with the SSTF. In my view, it makes more sense to define things like stock options as compensation. This would ensure that those who receive corporate stock options pay their fair share of Income and Social Security taxes on that income.

The reason they don't now is because they have enough Ds & Rs in their pockets to ensure that the tax code is favorable to them.

[indurancevile]

144. Other forms of taxation *aren't* mixed with SS. Unless you're talking about taxation of

SS benefits.

One thing that's responsible for that is the misleading discussion of SS, which you're contributing to.

Simple explanation: for 30 years workers paid more than was needed to fund then-current retirees & maintain a one-year cushion. The excess tax collections were used to fund the general budget. Taxes on benefits were instituted, some benefits were discontinued (for example an education benefits for dependents), and the age to receive full benefits was raised. Supposedly all this was to save the program and get the larger boomer cohort to fund their own retirement.

During the same period, income taxes on the top 1% & corporations were cut dramatically.

Now just as it comes time for the boomers to retire, SS is supposedly in trouble again, & the benefits they prepaid for are too expensive.

Lies.

[Cool Logic]

146. "Other forms of taxation *aren't* mixed with SS."

Indeed...that was the point of my query regarding capital gains taxes...and how "they factor into the SSTF equation."

It would appear that you either misunderstood, or have been misled.

[indurancevile]

156. it appears that your thinking is incoherent. capital gains are taxes on capital.

raising income taxes on capital to repay the money capital borrowed from labor in the form of social security taxes is not "mixing other forms of taxes with social security".

calling capital gains something else & taxing them as social security is incoherent & destroys the design of social security whereby workers directly fund their own retirements.

[girl gone mad]

62. Why wouldn't it be spent?

It makes no sense for a sovereign currency government to save up its own currency.

"these receivables aren't collectible unless more taxes are collected from the people who anted up the missing $2.6 trillion in the first place. "

Uh, no. Taxes don't fund government spending and most debt gets rolled over as demand for our bonds is consistently strong.

[joeglow3]

80. Wow, you really don't understand finances at all

What happens when demand for our bonds drops (and it WILL happen). Your view completely falls apart at that point.

[girl gone mad]

93. We don't need to sell bonds to spend.

In fact, we would be better off if we stopped "borrowing".

It's a non-issue.

[joeglow3]

105. So, we print more money

And what do you think happens when the government creates money out of thin air?

[girl gone mad]

112. The government just created several trillion dollars out of thin air.

You tell me what happened.

[Cool Logic]

83. "Uh, no. Taxes don't fund government spending" - Oh, really....?

I urge you to visit some of the fedgov?s websites, e.g., Treasury, IRS, SSTF, etc. There is information available that will help you to understand this issue.

[girl gone mad]

94. No, taxes don't fund anything.

The US government uses fiat currency. Taxes for revenue are obsolete. Taxation is the mechanism by which the government maintains the dollar's purchasing power and nothing more.

Just as an example, the government printed trillions to bail out Wall Street. Did your taxes go up to help pay for this massive new spending? Did we have to beg China to loan us this money?

[Cool Logic]

113. "They have no need to save."

Tell that to the people who depend on SS, when the fedgov cuts their monthly check in half. If fedgov really cared about the People, they would have never spent the SSTF. For a good manager would have evaluated and adjusted to the factor of Boomer demographics. But their Representatives didn't care about that. The only thing they were concerned with, was how fast they could spend the Boomer's SSTF, to enhance their own goddamn power.

If you recall, we've had this little discussion about money and *unconsumed* assets. And unlike you, I lack the mystical powers that are required to traverse beyond the boundaries of reason and enter into the realm of magic money economics.

The US's money is backed by the unconsumed assets of the American People. If there is resistance by the People to having their assets levied, the fedgov's money loses its magic.

For money cannot function as money without the People assets backing it up.

[indurancevile]

123. I think you don't understand the SS Trust Fund. The original purpose of the TF

was just an accounting cushion, so that if there was a sudden drop in SS tax revenue it could be covered without taking "real" money out of income tax receipts -- which would have been a violation of the SS legislation stating that SS COULD NOT be financed from income tax/the general budget.

The original SS legislation also specified that all excess SS tax collections MUST be put into US securities. That means MUST BE BORROWED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.

When the US government gets tax receipts, it spends them. That's all it can do with them. It doesn't put them in a drawer somewhere to "save" them. It doesn't "invest" them in the stock market (which is also spending). The best it can do is "invest" them in developing the US infrastructure and workforce (e.g. through education, health, and research spending).

So your anger over the government spending the Trust Fund is misplaced. That's what it's always done, that's what it's supposed to do.

Your anger is better directed to the people -- politicians & public figures - who are misinforming you about how the TF works.

Your anger should also be directed at the bipartisan Congress that passed the 1983 Reagan/Greenspan Social Security Amendments. Those amendments hiked Social Security tax rates to produce unprecedented surplus collections that grew for 30 years. Whereas before Reagan-Greenspan, the TF contained roughly about 1 years' surplus (which was the cushion specified in the original legislation), it's now grown to five years surplus -- $2.6 trillion.

You paid extra for 30 years -- supposedly because the boomers were such a big cohort who were going to live so long, but that is bullshit for various reasons which i won't go into.

Now you are going to pay extra again. THAT is the scam; not the fact that the government spent the surplus collections, but the fact that they collected the surpluses in the first place.

The SS Trustees are well aware of boomer demographics and took them into account long ago.

[Cool Logic]

130. "That means MUST BE BORROWED BY THE US GOVERNMENT."

That does not mean "MUST BE SPENT BY THE US GOVERNMENT."

[indurancevile]

134. it does.

[Better Believe It]

71. All of the the money from all of the bonds sold has been spent. So you think bonds are worthless?

Do you really believe that U.S. treasury securities are worthless, including those held by the Social Security trust fund and therefore should not be paid off and that S&P should have lowered their rating on U.S. bonds to D-?

That might be the argument made by tea baggers to justify the U.S. Treasury not paying their interest and principal on bonds!

[Cool Logic]

76. This has nothing to do with the value of Treasuries...

The point is, Congress had to borrow (issue bonds) in order to spend the SSTF.

So now, instead of a liquid $2.6T lockbox, American workers have $2.6T worth of bonds that they must service, to make the SSTF solvent.

In other words, American workers will essentially pay themselves back by anteing up another $2.6T.

How about those returns...?

[indurancevile]

124. there is no such thing as a lockbox and never could be. al gore is a liar and

i don't think you even know what a lockbox could be.

where would you suggest the government put $2.6 trillion it borrowed from you, under the bed?

no, the scam is that it borrowed it in the first place.

[Cool Logic]

133. I agree, the scam originated with the borrowing...

however, it culminated with the spending.

where would you suggest the government put $2.6 trillion it borrowed from you, under the bed?

Actually, I believe the Federal Reserve has twelve Banks...more than enough to hold $2.6T.

Of all the evils a government can do, this is the worst. When the SSFT money is finally needed, it will require the acquisition of more of the People's assets. Any corporation or individual who attempted such a thing would rightly be prosecuted for fraud.

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years imprisonment and forfeiture of $17.179 billion, for Securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, money laundering, making false filings with the SEC, theft from an employee benefit plan.

If we are serious about eliminating the fraud in the SSTF and Medicare, we should institute similar sentencing guidelines for our Representatives.

[indurancevile]

142. The federal reserve banks are not savings banks for the US govt.

Moreover, even if they were, so long as the US government spent the equivalent deficit, it would still have the same situation -- only worse, because then it would owe the same $ to a foreign creditor.

The problem is not that the US spent the money; the problem is that it doesn't want to repay. Or I should say, the problem is that capital doesn't want labor to have security in old age and wants to take a bigger chunk of US surplus production for itself.

It's a political problem, not an economic one -- not an issue of accounting practices or banking practices.

[sabrina 1]

153. What you are saying is that the US has defaulted on one of its

biggest creditors! Even Repubs won't go that far. Kerry has adapted the Repub talking points regarding SS and that is pretty frightening considering just months ago he was saying the opposite.

There is obviously something we do not know since President Obama made a statement at the G20 Conference almost identicle to Kerry's, a big change in what he has said in the past also.

If the US Govt plans to Default on the American people, then they better tell us. If they have so destroyed our economy that there is not bringing it back, which is the only reason for them to Default on the American people, then we have a right to know that and start rounding up the criminals responsible. Traitors would be a better word.

But if that is not the case, then SS will be just fine as soon as the Fed. Govt fixes its problems, which have zero to do with the SS fund, unless they cannot fix them. The US Govt has assets, it will have to use those assets to pay off its creditors. I think the problem is they do not want to use those assets. And I think we the people will have to force them to do it if they will not do it willingly.

No one in an official capacity has stated that we have been swindled. If we have, it's time to hear it from them.

[joeglow3]

78. I saved 100% of my income in my 401(k) and borrowed it to live off of.

By this logic, I have a SHIT TON saved for retirement. FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tsuki]

120. Until the US decides to default on them.

[johnaries]

151. "full faith and credit" which has just been downgraded. And which

Teabaggers wanted us to default on.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Surplus was invested in US bonds. nt

[polichick]

31. Please see #17 and #25 for helpful details.

[Cool Logic]

32. Do you realize what you just said?

Let's say you loan me $100 every payday. Let's also assume that you manage your money well and the only money you owe is for your house.

Back to that $100 you lend me every week. I want to spend the money, but the terms of my loan require that I pay you back within a week. So, I come up with a brilliant idea. I will secure an equity or 2nd mortgage on you home, so that I can pay you back every week.

Now, I can spend the $100 you lend me every week.

[slipslidingaway]

58. A lender would give someone a loan against property where they do not...

hold an interest?

[Cool Logic]

59. Why, certainly; for the rules are different for me than they are for everyone else.

In fact, in this little analogy, I write the rules.

(I think you may have missed the point)

[girl gone mad]

64. Your analogy is completely absurd.

You don't get to issue your own money, so when you want to increase your spending capacity, you have to borrow or save up in advance.

The US federal government doesn't face the same constraint. It never has to borrow and it has no need to save up its own currency. In fact, saving the dollars collected from FICA in a special account while continuing to borrow from China and other foreign countries would be an incredibly stupid move.

[Cool Logic]

69. If is appears absurd to you...

then you lack an understanding of basic accounting procedures.

That is understandable, for they do not employ legitimate accounting procedures in Washington.

[joeglow3]

81. You are pissing in the wind here.

As a CPA, I have fought this battle many times. Sadly, what is easy and common sense to accountants is usually difficult for non-accountants.

[Cool Logic]

92. I am not an accountant, but I look at our reports all the time.

It is not clear to me why people don't understand this. Is it conditioning, or lack of an accounting and/or economic education?

[girl gone mad]

96. Yet, you have no counter argument.

[joeglow3]

104. My argument is...

...if the government followed the same accounting principles that they require for public companies filing with the SEC, there would be a HUGE liability sitting out there and no asset. For a GAAP comparison, they consider social security and the rest of the government as 2 separate legal entities. However, the government REQUIRES companies to consolidate entities in this situation. If consolidated, the "assets" of social security would net against the liabilities of the rest of the government, leaving us with a big old goose egg.

[girl gone mad]

111. Do you understand the difference between a currency user..

and a currency issuer?

[Cool Logic]

118. Do you understand the difference between consumed and unconsumed assets...?

[girl gone mad]

119. Why do you think consumed and unconsumed assets are relevant?

As the currency issuer, the US can never go broke, it can never be insolvent. It can only default on its debt obligations (including Social Security) by choice.

The dollar is not backed by assets, unconsumed or otherwise. You can't take your dollars down to the Treasury department and demand that they be exchanged for assets or commodities or gold, etc.

[Cool Logic]

121. "As the currency issuer, the US can never go broke, it can never be insolvent."

In another thread you also asserted: Fiat currency is not backed by anything..except the taxing authority of the currency issuer.

Now, let' apply some logic to that statement:

- Fiat currency is not backed by anything..except...taxing authority of the currency issuer.

- Thus, we can say that fiat currency is backed by the taxing authority of the currency user.

- The process of taxation entails the transfer of unconsumed assets from the People to the taxing authority.

- Thus, we can say that the fedgov's currency is backed by the People's unconsumed assets.

- Then, it stands to reason that the fedgov's currency cannot be backed by the People's consumed assets.

- Similarly, if the People hold no unconsumed assets, the fedgov is indeed "broke."

- Finally, we conclude: American workers have $2.6T worth of bonds that they must service, with their unconsumed assets to make the SSTF solvent. For the fedgov consumed the original $2.6T of unconsumed assets that the People transfered to them via the SS tax.

[girl gone mad]

95. How so?

You seem to not understand basic accounting. The federal government is the monopoly issuer of currency. They have no need to save.

Where is it that you think money comes from?

[defendandprotect]

52. You mean Uncle Sam is a crook -- and a dead beat?

[polichick]

54. Pretty much. :/

[defendandprotect]

57. Can't wait to see the new "Uncle Sam" posters -- !!!

[valerief]

2. Well, he's a NEW Democrat.

Current senators

Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
John Kerry (MA, from 2000)<8>
Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

[xchrom]

3. Could be any establishment socialist in Europe.

This is the problem - then infiltration
Of Austrian/Friedman think in establishment democrats.

[nineteen50]

4. Funny

How there is always money to welfare wall street, corporations
and war, but not to help or keep our promises to the working
class.

[ProSense]

6. Senator Kerry: “Under no circumstances should benefits be cut to try to balance the budget"

here

[MannyGoldstein]

10. But he used the BS "no SLASHING" language:

"Opposition to any approach that slashes benefits for future generations"

And, as we know, that's cute word parsing that actually means "let's cut it":

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits.

[ProSense]

14. Do

“Under no circumstances should benefits be cut to try to balance the budget"

you see the word "slash" or "cut"?

It's good to see selective outrage in full effect.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. It's right in your previous link

Should I not read your link?

[ProSense]

18. This

“Under no circumstances should benefits be cut to try to balance the budget"

is in the text at the link too: "slash" or "cut," which of these words do you see above?

selective outrage

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Here's the link you referred to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=741843&mesg_id=741843

[Le Taz Hot]

125. So, was he for it before he was against it or was he against it

before he was for it? :eyes:

[indurancevile]

7. et tu kerry?

[ixion]

9. Yeah, because Endless War, Creeping Fascism, Rampant Unemployment

are just a-okay. :eyes:

Good 'ol take-a-dive.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Demographics do concern me. It's not the boomers' fault there's a lot of them, but...

there's a lot of them.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. That was 100% planned for in 1983

And nothing is happening much differently than was planned:

http://www.handsoffss.org/when-the-baby-boomers-retire-will-too-few-people-be-paying-into-social-security.html">But isn’t it true that, in the future, there will be fewer people paying in to Social Security for each one drawing benefits? Won’t that cause a problem?

[BeFree]

26. If so

Then the real problem is that there will be more takers and less givers?
All you have to do then is take more from the givers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. This new found urgency to "fix" the debt is appalling..and ridiculous. K&R

When you stop to think about, the nation blundered around for decades with a giant debt and running up more debt and all of a sudden Lehman Brothers collapses and the debt is a frightening beast that must be handled immediately.

I'm not talking about some massive capitalist conspiracy, but incredible mismanagement that went unnoticed ("..nobody could have predicted..") for all that time.

And, now they want to "fix" it? The same guys who were too goddam stupid to see it coming?

[CelticThunder]

16. And away we go!

[undeterred]

20. The problem with Senator Kerry is that he has too damn much money.

It has skewed his perspective.

[Unvanguard]

23. Kerry is basically correct.

You, however, are presenting his quote in an extremely misleading fashion.

What you say (accurately) about Medicare and Medicaid has to do with solutions, not with the presence of problems. It is simply true that high health care costs, reflected in high Medicare and Medicaid spending, contribute to our long-term structural debt. That needs to be addressed. The way to do so, as you and I, and I'd bet Kerry, agree, is not by shifting costs from the government to consumers. It may, however, be by increased revenue, or by finding ways to reduce health care spending without cutting back on effective care--e.g., through comparative effectiveness analysis.

What you say about Social Security is simply wrong, for http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=931203&mesg_id=933434">reasons we've discussed before.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Of course there's "reasons" for the low estimate

But the previous estimates have also been consistently low, for the same "reasons" that don't happen. For example, the 1995 projection had "reasons" to show that the Trust Fund would be depleted eight years earlier than the current projection shows. I stand by my previous defense.

[Unvanguard]

37. I'm sorry that predicting the future is hard.

Nobody anticipated the late 1990s economic boom. If we get growth like that for an extended period of time, it probably would delay their prediction by some time. But who's to say we will? We might also get the opposite, i.e. unexpectedly low growth (especially given the awful macroeconomic policies currently being pursued on the fiscal front).

It is still misleading to argue that the estimates project lower economic growth than in the past without explaining why they project lower economic growth, and without providing any reason that their argument is dubious.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. We agree - predicting the future is hard

So, given that:

1. no credible source claims that the Trust Fund will be depleted in less than 26 years
2. actual numbers have consistently ended up looking much more like the "low-cost" projection than the intermediate projection
3. even if the intermediate projections are correct, we can easily fix things many years from now with ease (e.g., at a lower yearly cost than the Bush tax cuts)

There's no good reason to touch it *now* - other than to grab the Trust Fund for the wealthiest Americans.

[Unvanguard]

45. Not saying this is likely, but what about raising the payroll tax cap?

Seems like a good way to secure Social Security without threatening beneficiaries.

We are certainly agreed that there is no good reason to cut benefits, for present or future beneficiaries.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Fine.

Somehow I didn't realize that you were against cutting benefits. I'm very, very glad to hear that!

:toast:

[Unvanguard]

55. Sorry for not making that clear.

I have the same view of the Social Security shortfall that I have of the broader debt problem: there are good reasons to believe it is a problem, but there are no good reasons to use that as an excuse to make the low- and middle-income people bear the burden of that problem. (There are also no good reasons for means-testing benefits, given that there are better ways to make rich people pay their fair share.)

[indurancevile]

126. if predicting the future is hard, then why do the trustees insist on trying to predict

it 80 years into the future and pretend like it means anything? and pretend that we must do something "now" because of their predictions for 25 years from now, or within an 80 year window, or even into infinity (which is what some of the dire SS predictions are based on).

[SnoopDog]

24. So, with the Reps, Backus, and now Kerry - they will end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

They really have a death wish on you and me...don't they.

I say revolution should start tomorrow...

[Major Hogwash]

27. The runaway healthcare costs are the real culprit.

So, we need ONE National HealthCare plan that covers all of us.
Not just some of us, but ALL of us.

If we eliminate the middleman -- healthcare insurance -- and just provide guaranteed healthcare for everyone, we can cut the costs of healthcare in half in the the next 10 years, and that's using a rather conservative figure.

If the government guarantees healthcare for everyone, then the healthcare insurance industry has no need to exist.
Unless the wealthy want to buy their insurance.

[bvar22]

70. ONE National HealthCare plan ...

...would also allow for a stronger Bargaining Position with Hospitals & Big Pharm for decent rates,
not to mention a uniform standard for treatment.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[merbex]

28. You are right on target with this Manny~ I had a digital voice recorder

going at a Town Hall event on the South Shore Kerry held and Kerry said this past Spring that we needed changes to Medicare and SS

I will get it uploaded to share it tomorrow ~ it will go on my blog and I will put a link up.

He was challenged by a citizen about SS but he insisted that we needed "changes"

When I saw that he was appointed today I thought ~ shit

It wouldn't surprise me if he does this and then he gets the Sec of State position( IF Obama gets re-elected and HC steps down) - because Kerry will not win re-election if he pulls this move.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Thanks!

Where are you located? I'm in Newton.

[merbex]

39. Kerry event was in Marshfield~ I'm in Hingham n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Hingham is gorgeous! nt

[Yo_Mama]

51. I didn't know this

Thanks for posting. It doesn't bode well, but it is important to know what you are up against.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. Kerry realizes it will be a problem

but he doesn't want to cut it. It will be difficult to deal with the cost of this until we pull back on silly defense (as opposed to real defense)and start chasing the taxless rich.

[woo me with science]

33. K&R nt

[L0oniX]

34. The multimillionaire speaks.

[dionysus]

43. yes, big ketchup, like rush says.

[PurityOfEssence]

84. Mom's old line of "picklepuss" comes to mind...

Heinz also makes those...

(It's an old term for a sourpuss or someone with a perpetual frown; she didn't come up with it...)

[lukasahero]

100. We're quoting Rush in agreement now?

Pardon me while I go put my exploded head back together...

[DevonRex]

103. Sarcasm.

Dionysus is a Dem.

[lukasahero]

106. It's getting seriously hard to tell around here these days.

But thanks - I saw a post further downstream that made me think so but hey, the one s/he's responding to probably considers him/herself one, too. :shrug:

(Honestly, I just never know any more. I can't believe what I am reading sometimes.)

[DevonRex]

107. I do know what you mean. For sure.

:hi:

[stranger81]

38. The fix is in. Count on it.

And unfortunately, it doesn't really matter what Kerry thinks anyway, because you can bet your ass there will be a Conrad on the committee to sell our side out.

[dkf]

40. I keep telling you this and you keep on insisting on using your own growth rate as opposed

To the one they have determined should be used.

The congress doesn't get to pick what growth rate they want to use.

I've quoted endlessly from government documents and you keep on calling me a right winger and GOP shill. I am exactly on the same page as our congress as we are both using the same reports. You are the one out in left field.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. I would never call you a right-winger or a GOP shill

But I do disagree with you. Congress absolutely does get to pick the growth rate they want to use, it's just a guess. But their current guess is likely to be low.

[dkf]

56. No they don't. Those are civil servants deciding what to use.

Tim Pawlenty gets to pick his numbers in his policy papers for a Presidential run. But then everyone gets to laugh at his numbers.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

42. now you've moved on to campaigning against a broad swath of dems.

god blesss you, your mission against the dems is steadfast.

you can take kerry down too, if you wish real hard.


:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

46. I will fight against stealing from working Americans

I hope that you will too.

[ProSense]

53. Keep up

the fight against facts:

Kerry: Under no circumstances should benefits be cut to try to balance the budget

[DevonRex]

102. This is the Anti-DemocraticUnderground, for sure.

[defendandprotect]

48. Obviously, John Kerry is another New Dem who should be targeted -- !!

And replaced with a liberal Democrat who has some respect for seniors and

those who need and support universal health care!!

A lot of masks coming off lately!!

[girl_interrupted]

50. K&R

[Raine]

60. Kerry is "Skull & Bones" that pretty much says it all

for me. x(

[Inuca]

77. That's undescribably silly n/t

[markpkessinger]

131. I don't know ...

... I have a brother-in-law who voted for Nader in 2004 because, as he put it, "I really don't see that much difference between Yale '66 and Yale '68."

[BzaDem]

63. That particular statement isn't necessarily inconsistent with what you are saying.

Because of demographic changes, SS will likely be insolvent within a few decades, even if the long term productivity average remains what it has over the last several decades. Similarly, Medicare and Medicaid as currently constituted produce structural debt that will be problematic in the future (even without demographic changes, let alone with them).

Now, you are correct that the optimal solution to these problems is to lower system-wide healthcare costs and increase the payroll tax on the wealthy, not to cut benefits. But that doesn't change the fact that Kerry was correct in his description of the problem. Maybe Kerry is a born-again benefit cutter. Maybe he isn't. But the quote you mention doesn't say either way.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. The Demographic changes were addressed in 1983

I don't believe that anything happening today is much different than what the Greenspan commission anticipated in 1983:

http://www.handsoffss.org/when-the-baby-boomers-retire-will-too-few-people-be-paying-into-social-security.html
http://www.handsoffss.org/now-that-people-live-longer-than-we-used-to-will-that-cause-social-security-to-go-bankrupt.html

[sabrina 1]

65. That is a complete reversal of his position just

a short time ago, and in fact from what it ever was.

I just looked it up today, along with Baucus', who btw, was also good on SS, surprisingly, and Patty Murray.

Unbelievable. They betray the people without batting an eye and switch positions the way they change their clothes.

That word 'structural' ... they are all using it now. We noticed it a few weeks ago, Obama eg, used it a lot regarding SS, at the G20 conference airc.

Just seeing him use it gave me chills as we had concluded that it was the latest word to replace 'cuts' regarding SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

[jtown1123]

67. You shouldn't be surprised...we're pretty much fucked. He will vote with the GOP.

[deaniac21]

68. This pretty much explains the Social Security trust fund:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFmkILBCr3w

[Faryn Balyncd]

72. Senator, you are missing the REAL problem :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1709771

[Karmadillo]

74. The real problem: the criminally bloated defense budget & the political power of the oligarchy that

allows them to veto tax increases. Kerry knows this. Why the failure to speak the truth?

[karynnj]

99. You mean the Constitutional power of the House to NOT PASS

a bill if it includes a tax increase? Why make up powers when the real power is not unexplainable?

As to this OP, you are smart enough to able to listen to the 3 or 4 speeches Kerry has given on the floor of the Senate where he has spoken of entitlements, the debt etc. Many were posted here. He has used language that is very hard to walk back from saying the Ryan budget is "immoral". In several, he detailed that with minor tweaks SS is good for a century.

Medicare is not in as good a shape, but the solutions he has spoken of are is dealing with high health care costs. Medicaid does not have a trust fund, but it is essential and something he fought over his career to expand.

I am not saying that that sentence was taken out of context - it wasn't but it does not say what you imply - especially as his speeches have spoken in far more detail on his position. As he is your Senator and you called him and got a response from his staff - consistent with his speeches, it seems you may have given this too much weight.

The fact is this will be a horrible assignment for any Democrat - but some have to do it. This is a no win assignment for a Democrat. NOTHING that could come out of this committee will look like a good plan here, much less a victory. There are few if any Democrats as dedicated, hard working and smart as Kerry. It would seem that attacking the Senators who agree to serve will not make them more effective.

As to those repeating RW smears, comments on his personal wealth, New Democrat (which he was in 2000 - the same time Dean was), you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[roxiejules]

154. Defense Budget 2011-2016 is $2,885 Billion

The Department of Defense (DoD) provides a five- or six-year plan, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)...the estimated cost through 2016 is $2,885 billion.

OCO = overseas contingency operations

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12264/06-30-11_FYDP.pdf

[Fire Walk With Me]

82. They are making the economy worse, to create an excuse to steal it all.

[Faryn Balyncd]

88. Here are Senator Kerry's CONTACT NUMBERS:

http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/


Boston
One Bowdoin Square
Tenth Floor
Boston, MA 02114
[phone]

Fall River
222 Milliken Place
Suite 312
Fall River, MA 02721
[phone]

Springfield
Springfield Federal Building
1550 Main Street
Suite 304
Springfield, MA 01103-1427
[phone]

Washington D.C.
218 Russell Bldg.
Second Floor
Washington D.C. 20510
[phone]



I was unable to reach a human in the Washington office (only answering machines), but spoke with a very personable aide in the Boston office.

[Initech]

89. They dont get it. They don't get it. They don't get it. They don't get it.

Ending medicare won't solve this. Ending the wars and taxing the uber-rich will. They don't fucking get it. :argh:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okieinpain]

91. maybe you're just wrong. n/t.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. I hope so nt

[TNLib]

97. Et Tu Brute

nt

[supraTruth]

101. Pass THIS on to him:

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=175790;article=1434570;title=Religion%20and%20Ethics%20BBS

[blindpig]

127. Whose side is he on?

The side of his class.

[Honeycombe8]

132. Hate to say I told you so, but...... It's not good news that Kerry is on that commission.

He goes whichever way the wind blows. He has beliefs and pet issues, but even with those, he'll give 'em up easily, if others insist he do that, or if it gets him more votes.

[RobinA]

137. Al Gore's

lockbox is starting to sound better and better.

[YvonneCa]

150. TOO LATE. GWB emptied it...

...out LONG ago.

[fascisthunter]

138. I will not vote for him or anyone who votes for these cuts

I'm done with the charade...

[sarcasmo]

140. One more rich wind bag who doesn't want the elderly poor and disabled to live.

[Inuca]

147. I just don't understand you people any longer :-(

I don't understand how a rational person can deny that in the long run "the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation" ia an ACTUAL problem. We are dealing with an aging population. And even when the baby boomers of which I am one will die off, it will still be an aging population, comapared with the 30s or even the 60s. It's a problem facing all advanced countries, that's why the social systems (pensions, medical benefits) are stretched and possibly breaking even in places that have much better and humane systems than we do here (and less expensive health care systems). I have friends and family in France, germany, and the Netherlands, similar issues are being discusses there as well. Of course, each case is different, but the core of the problem is very similar. Burying your head in the sand and saying "how dares he?" won't make FACTS go away. Something NEEDS to be done, the important thing is WHAT, and somebody like Kerry being willing to shoulder the burden and using his considerable intelect, knowlwdge and even wisdom so that, together with others, try to find a solution, at least a partial one, to these problems, makes me feel better, not worse.

[indurancevile]

149. Because it's NOT AN ACTUAL PROBLEM.

We are dealing with an aging population. And even when the baby boomers of which I am one will die off, it will still be an aging population, comapared with the 30s or even the 60s.

The population has been aging since 1900. From then until now the US & Europe have become many times richer & more productive, such that we are able to support many more dependents with fewer workers.

And in fact, the dependency ratio (non-workers:workers) has gone DOWN, not up because of smaller families & the entry of women into the workforce.

According to you, there's not enough money (or production) to support a lot of elderly via SS. If that is true, then there's not enough money (production) to support them AT ALL. Because all social security does is take a percent of the value of current production and send it to old people.

BUT THERE IS ENOUGH PRODUCTION. THE ONLY "PROBLEM" IS THAT THE RULING CLASS WANTS TO TAKE A LARGER SLICE OF THE VALUE OF PRODUCTION AND LET OLD PEOPLE DIE.

[swilton]

152. The real problem for our country Senator

is that you and your colleagues in the Senate (House/Oval Office) represent the interests of corporations and not the people who elected you.

[sfpcjock]

155. False.

He probably doesn't know with his $600 million fortune, so he could be forgiven. This is the exact same problem though around Washington, as Joan Walsh said on Real Time last week:

http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher/index.html#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/0/223-episode/index.html

Take a few minutes to listen to that really great show:

Episode #223
http://www.hbo.com/podcasts/billmaher/podcast.xml

Here is the exact link to the MP3 audio podcast file: http://pdl.cdn.hbo.com/podcasts/billmaher/1081756_dl.mp3