...remember this down the road when you're eating your Alpo-burgers and watching your benefits getting slashed: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Sure woulda been nice to salt away some money for the the country's "Golden Years." If you want to know how nice, go to one of the many financial calculators on the 'netz, type in your best estimates of the cost of the war, and likely future growth rates, and see what you get, e.g.,: http://1040tools.com/html/wc.dll?cptest1~calc~fv~my.

Whatever it is, it'll be a lot, say, a trust fund's worth. Jeez, maybe if we'd taken George-the-Financial-Planner-Bush's advice, and put the money in the stock market....

That's too much information to digest.

On that note, Mmmm-mmm, Alpo-burgers.

This is what happens when people rely on the government for their financial security. Why would anyone do that? Especially over the course of a lifetime? Things can change from generation to generation. Diveristy in all things is prudent. Don't put all of you stock in the government my friend.

Additionally, the cost of the war and all of the related costs is about 2% of GDP. No small change, but not breaking the bank either. Cut back on some pork and they can pay for the war without any problem at all.

This is what happens when people rely on the government for their financial security. Why would anyone do that? Especially over the course of a lifetime? Things can change from generation to generation. Diveristy in all things is prudent. Don't put all of you stock in the government my friend.

Additionally, the cost of the war and all of the related costs is about 2% of GDP. No small change, but not breaking the bank either. Cut back on some pork and they can pay for the war without any problem at all.


I'll be glad to invest more of my money as soon as the government gives it back to me. I was required to invest in SS and medicare on the promise it would be there when I needed it. If not, then I'll take a refund on my contributions and get them somewhere I can get the most for my money. If they keep my money, then I want the insurance. And, if Dumb-(|) George and his buddies would stop raping taxpayers to pay for a stupid senseless war, we'd be doing a lot better - kind of like we were when Clinton was in the WH.

The cost of war is exactly what's sending the economy into a nosedive, that and energy. I've posted many authoritative sources that support that in other threads. People who don't read them or don't believe them because of heir peculiar politics, well, who really cares. They are certainly on their way out. No matter who wins, the cons lose.

You gotta admit, steam, Walleye has a point.

The government made a deal with us- we give them some of our money, they give us a safety net when we get older, in case everything goes to hell and our investments crash.

They are not keeping up their end of the deal.

That is not right.

I was never given the option of not paying, so they should be held to the same standard.

That's not a liberal or conservative issue, that's breach of contract.

Don't put all of you stock in the government my friend.

I never do, but I'm afraid my neighbors might. Then I'm on the hook anyway.

Additionally, the cost of the war and all of the related costs is about 2% of GDP. No small change, but not breaking the bank either. Cut back on some pork and they can pay for the war without any problem at all.

More on that: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html

What's "pork" and "what we can afford" really depends on whose thumb is on the scale.

Actually, I'd say the cost of this war was the only thing keeping this economy going for these past five years. All that money being poured into military-industrial businesses, and all that pork being funnelled to the likes of Halliburton, KBR and the rest, was injected straight into our system, and filtered through to everyone else.

Unfortunately, the sad fact is that wasn't real money, it was borrowed money, and sooner or later, the bill comes due. Now it's bill paying time, and we don't have it. I mean, we could continue to just keep on borrowing and borrowing, but it's just gonna keep getting worse.

As for Steamy's 2% of GDP. That might be ok if we were actually paying it off out of the current budget. But we're not. It's just sitting there, compounding and getting larger with each passing month.

Funny how you guys can claim SS and Medicare are in trouble because they're not being fully funded and paid for today, but funding for the war is no big deal.

Actually, I'd say the cost of this war was the only thing keeping this economy going for these past five years. All that money being poured into military-industrial businesses, and all that pork being funnelled to the likes of Halliburton, KBR and the rest, was injected straight into our system, and filtered through to everyone else...

Guns vs. butter?

Actually, I'd say the cost of this war was the only thing keeping this economy going for these past five years. All that money being poured into military-industrial businesses, and all that pork being funnelled to the likes of Halliburton, KBR and the rest, was injected straight into our system, and filtered through to everyone else.

Unfortunately, the sad fact is that wasn't real money, it was borrowed money, and sooner or later, the bill comes due. Now it's bill paying time, and we don't have it. I mean, we could continue to just keep on borrowing and borrowing, but it's just gonna keep getting worse.

The cost of this war is unbearably high. Figures like this make me sick:


In figures

$16bn
The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending

$138
The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war

$19.3bn
The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq

$25bn
The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war

$3 trillion
A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again

$5bn
Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq

$1 trillion
The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war

3%
The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa


I realize the continuing industrialization of China and India are the major driving forces for the cost of oil but those figures for the financing of the war are going to crush us even further.

Figures above come from a recent book by Jospeh Stiglitz. Source: here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan).

I despise this war. It was a completely stupid idea from before the start, even if the WMD evidence had turned out to be true. It's been a tragic waste of treasure, of our world standing, and particularly of our heroic men and women in uniform.

But as far as the money is concerned, it's chump change. OK, so it's more than that, but it's not particularly worrying. If it's money you want to get angry about, get FURIOUS about the criminals that foisted the SS and Medicare Ponzi schemes upon us, and the self-indulgent generations before that were all to happy to lay this burden on us. Make no mistake, the government isn't responsible for this - our parents and grandparents are.

Let's put this in focus: At present rates of growth, by 2019 these two programs will consume ALL federal sources of funds. At present, the IOU for each American Household amounts to approx. $455,000. Nearly a half-million and rising. If we had that kind of money lying around, we wouldn't be worried about whether SS was solvent or not.

I am enraged by the ignorance of folks who claim that the government 'made a promise and took my money, now they owe me.' IT AINT THE GOVERNMENT'S TO GIVE, AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T HAVE IT. The only way they can 'give' you anything, is to first take it away along with a sizeable administrative fee (what, you think government works perfectly efficiently and with volunteer labor?)

The only reasonable solution is to freeze (or nearly so) the rate of increase in benefits. It will give the folks unfortunate enough to fall for this scam time to die off, while allowing older workers some support and a chance to redirect additional savings. Anyone younger than about 45 shouldn't count on any meaningful government retirement, both as a practical matter and as a matter of national interest.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

I am enraged by the ignorance of folks who claim that the government 'made a promise and took my money, now they owe me.' IT AINT THE GOVERNMENT'S TO GIVE, AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T HAVE IT. The only way they can 'give' you anything, is to first take it away along with a sizeable administrative fee (what, you think government works perfectly efficiently and with volunteer labor?)

The only reasonable solution is to freeze (or nearly so) the rate of increase in benefits. It will give the folks unfortunate enough to fall for this scam time to die off,

Be enraged all you want. That was the deal. I'm holding the government to it. And, with a huge number of voters among the Baby Boomers, I seriously doubt the programs will end anytime soon unless Congress decides to commit mass suicide. Give me my money or pay me. Seems ultimately fair to me. If you must, stop spending billions on stupid wars. Seems smart to me. But, quit whining there isn't money. There is money. It's just being spent on the wrong things. The goverment should factor in its set obligations before it decides to bounce checks funding senseless wars going no where.

It's exactly that thought process that put us into this mess. Thanks for making my point.

If we hadn't gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, the math would be the same. Hate the war all you want - I do and have since before it began - but as a budget issue it's a barely a blip.

Please try to understand - despite that big waste of perfectly good wetlands along the Potomac, financially 'the Government' doesn't exist. They can't give you anything that they don't first take from you. They'll be happy to give you what you believe you 'deserve' for your retirement, just as soon as you send in your check for half a million dollars.

You seem to believe that there's 'no chance' of getting this mess fixed - and that's true, as long as we keep thinking and acting that way, leaving it to chance and the actions of others. The moment enough people get off their lazy backsides and decide to get it fixed, it will be.

It's exactly that thought process that put us into this mess. Thanks for making my point.

If we hadn't gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, the math would be the same. Hate the war all you want - I do and have since before it began - but as a budget issue it's a barely a blip.

Please try to understand - despite that big waste of perfectly good wetlands along the Potomac, financially 'the Government' doesn't exist. They can't give you anything that they don't first take from you. They'll be happy to give you what you believe you 'deserve' for your retirement, just as soon as you send in your check for half a million dollars.

You seem to believe that there's 'no chance' of getting this mess fixed - and that's true, as long as we keep thinking and acting that way, leaving it to chance and the actions of others. The moment enough people get off their lazy backsides and decide to get it fixed, it will be.

Interesting thoughts. But;

1. I did contribute quite a bit to SS and Medicare. I still am and wilkl for another 10 years. It was an investment in my future. I want it.

2. And, I am not alone. The babyboomers will be a huge plurality of the voters. We all want our cash;

3. Young people might think the answer is to do away with it. Easy for them to say. They said the same when my company was sold and my pension went bye bye. Investing IRAs and 401Ks, they said. Dandy idea if I were 26. I'm 56. Stop it for you, fine. But pay us everything we are supposed to get until we die.

4. The war is not a blip. An exerpt from The Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/editors

editorial | posted March 13, 2008 (March 31, 2008 issue)
It's the War Economy, Stupid!


With the country poised on the precipice of a recession, if not already in one, the economy has eclipsed Iraq as the most pressing issue of the moment. But rather than being treated as discrete items on a laundry list of issues, the war and the economy should be linked. While the current economic meltdown has other causes, one of the biggest obstacles we face in pulling out of this crisis is the staggering cost of the war in Iraq.

In the five years since the war began, the United States has spent more than $522 billion in Iraq. This year spending will easily top $160 billion. Yet, as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes point out in their new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, the short-term costs pale in comparison with the sum our nation will spend over the long term. Ongoing veterans' health costs, debt payments and the cost of re-equipping the military are some of the reasons for this outrageous $3 trillion bill. At the same time that the war has imposed a huge burden on taxpayers, it has precipitated one of the largest transfers of wealth and power in modern history. By helping to drive up world oil prices, it has produced a massive redistribution of wealth from working Americans and other oil and gas consumers to a handful of oil producers."

There's much more. The point is spend government cash where it belongs...meeting obligations to Americans and spending down debt instead of fighting stupid wars that go nowhere and do nothing, which we've been doing on and off for about 45 years now.

danl1 - Your ignoramity proves the larger point that few, and you're not one of them, have a grasp of the larger picture and are willing to take action. And none of the few includes anyone in our nation's capital. We're become our own worst enemy but choose to ignore that. As a result we spin our wheels debating the small pieces of the larger puzzle. This results in the pieces multiplying and getting smaller, making it increasingly difficult to make any substantive progress towards solving the puzzle.

The fact is, our government took our money, said it would protect and invest it, and give it back to us when we got old. Along the way it mis-managed the funds and rather than take some responsibility for the shortfall and act to fix the problem, it decided to spend the money on a war.

You gotta admit, steam, Walleye has a point.

The government made a deal with us- we give them some of our money, they give us a safety net when we get older, in case everything goes to hell and our investments crash.

They are not keeping up their end of the deal.

That is not right.

I was never given the option of not paying, so they should be held to the same standard.

That's not a liberal or conservative issue, that's breach of contract.

when I retire...I want my damn money back..with interest...in one big check!!!!

The fact is, our government took our money, said it would protect and invest it, and give it back to us when we got old. Along the way it mis-managed the funds and rather than take some responsibility for the shortfall and act to fix the problem, it decided to spend the money on a war.

That is not any sort of 'fact'. Never was. Social Security receipts have never been 'invested' in anything other than covering a portion of our national debt. Monetarily, that's not an investment, just a redirection, and legally, SS can't 'invest' in anything at all. The government took your money and handed it to someone else for their retirement, then took someone else's money and handed it to a third person, and so on. There was never any 'trust fund', never any investment, never any promise to give back what was 'your's,' never any part of it that could even remotely be considered 'old age insurance' or a voluntary investment program.

You never contributed to your retirement by paying Social Security taxes. You paid for your parents and for theirs. An example: My Grandfather paid into SS for couple of decades, then retired and lived quite happily for the next 30 years. Problem is, he got every penny he contributed back in the first year of his retirement. My Grandmother got another 20 years out of it, despite never having paid in a cent. It took my father 5 years to make his contributions back, but that was 20 years ago and he's still on the clock. There are two decades of workers before and another after them that have the same story, with only changes to the payback times.

Meanwhile, if you work all the way out to retirement age and take the full benefit, you'll need to live to 116 or so to get back 'what's yours.' And that's before they inevitably change the rules that will out of necessity both increase your tax and decrease your payments, as they have so often in the past. Sucker.

FWIW, you vastly underestimate my age. If things go anywhere near to plan, I will retire in less than a dozen years. I will do that regardless of what happens to SS, because unlike the vast majority I long since have seen through this criminal scheme and realized it couldn't last. If they send me a check, whatever. I'm confident I'll just be sending it back in the next version of tax 'reform' that they cook up.

It's not my problem, and shouldn't be the problem of your children and grandchildren, that most people were too stupid to see this coming and went off buying flat screen TV's, SUV's, McMansions on goofy loans, and every other 'must have' instead of taking responsibility for their own futures.

You can cry all you want about what you are 'owed' - it's not going to be there, it can't possibly be. You can complain all you want about all the money the government wastes and what they waste it on - goodness knows there's plenty to be angry about - but that doesn't change the fact that Social Security was recognized as unsustainable in 1935, was forced through anyway, and generation upon generation of Washington wh0res (it's insane to call them 'representatives') have continued and compounded the scheme.

By law, whatever wars, corporate perks, farm subsidies, welfare and other vote-getting and power-grabbing payola the government blew their wad on has no effect on the amount of money available to pay your greedy little self-involved retirement 'earnings.'

You can either take your lumps like a man, or completely destroy your children's futures. Pretty cowardly thing to do just because you want 'yours.' You want what's coming to you? Get it from who really took it. Go beat up your parents and grandparents. They voted for this scheme, they voted for the folks that continued it, and they spent every dime of the money you so foolishly believe is locked up somewhere with your name on it.

Silly, I know what the deal was. I pay for my parents, the kids pay for me. Who needs to buck up here?

And, fact is we are spending billions for bombs when health care and taking care of our old and sick should be higher on the list of our priorities. War is a freaking luxury when you can't pay your bills as a nation. I'm going to be owed. Start saving now.

Social security and medicare would be fixed with the "investment" we've made in the war. Our war "investment" is not chump change, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Social security and medicare would be fixed with the "investment" we've made in the war. Our war "investment" is not chump change, not by any stretch of the imagination.

That crap about how the money for the war would have fixed all ills is BS. We went years between wars and didn't fix it. What we might have done is find a bunch of feel good programs to fund eternally. SS has been in trouble for a long time but it was suddenly solvent when Bush tried to alter it now it's broke again?

That crap about how the money for the war would have fixed all ills is BS. We went years between wars and didn't fix it. What we might have done is find a bunch of feel good programs to fund eternally. SS has been in trouble for a long time but it was suddenly solvent when Bush tried to alter it now it's broke again?

Here, check this out, from the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3650&type=0

The quote from the third paragraph down says it all: "It is the federal government's total claims on the nation's resources that affect the economy—not the individual components that make up those claims."

And to those who note that the current war isn't costing us "much" as a percentage of GDP, well, take a look at Fig. 1; the anticipated difference between inflows and outlays is about 2% of GDP, which is about the cost of the war. Further, the war is an "off-book" project, so who the phuck knows what it's really running. Current defense spending as a % of GDP is about 4%: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#ref-1

and what percent of the federal budget just goes to pay interest on the national debt?

If we didn't have that debt, then this discussion about SS and medicaid would be moot.
The probelm isn't that SS is in jeopardy. The problem is that come 2019 or thereabouts, we will need more money to pay out for retireees' benefits than is currently being taken in in SS taxes.

That means, instead of using the SS surplus to offset the real yearly deficit numbers(without that, our yearly deficits would be far greater than the numbers shown in that graph), we're gonna need some money coming from the general fund to add to that brought in from SS taxes. And because we're running deficits every year, we don't have it. So, you either cut benefits, raise taxes, or just continue to borrow. That's the deal the politicians made, use the SS money now to offset the deficits, and when the time comes, they'll supplement it from the general fund. Now they want to renege on that deal and just walk away.

That's why Bill Clinton was running surpluses each year, to build a stock to pay down some federal debt, and to be prepared for when this day would come. George Bush and the rest of the repubs took one look at that surplus and said, "tax cut!!!". Can't think long term to save their lives. Can't prepare now for what's gonna happen in the future. Everything's about immediate gratification. hardly a conservative philosophy.

However, if the federal government had been setting that money aside all these years in preparation for the boomers' retirement, again, the issue would be moot, and danl wouldn't have anything to whine about. That's not a drawback or a fault of the SS system. That's purely the fault of the individuals who run our government.

SS is a contract the government entered into with its citizens, and they better damn well honor it. If I'm not gonna see my SS benefits, then I want all the money back that I've paid into the system all these years.

Here, check this out, from the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3650&type=0

The quote from the third paragraph down says it all: "It is the federal government's total claims on the nation's resources that affect the economy—not the individual components that make up those claims."

And to those who note that the current war isn't costing us "much" as a percentage of GDP, well, take a look at Fig. 1; the anticipated difference between inflows and outlays is about 2% of GDP, which is about the cost of the war. Further, the war is an "off-book" project, so who the phuck knows what it's really running. Current defense spending as a % of GDP is about 4%: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#ref-1

I'm not saying it isn't costing us much, I'm saying it wouldn't have been spent to save SS or on education or any of the other things that we hear could be doing so well if only we weren't at war. When the battle over fixing SS was hot and Bush tried to change the structure, Democrats claimed it was solvent for years yet. It's a political football and both sides would rather see it go under before letting the other side claim credit for fixing it. Separate the complaints and address them on their own merits. If you hate the war, actively work to end it. If you want SS restructured, work on that and same with education. Just quit saying "if only" because it isn't a real argument.

Bush wasn't trying to fix it, he was trying to eliminate it.

And it is solvent, as long as the government honors its obligations. Bush wanted the government to walk away from them.

I'm not saying it isn't costing us much, I'm saying it wouldn't have been spent to save SS or on education or any of the other things that we hear could be doing so well if only we weren't at war. When the battle over fixing SS was hot and Bush tried to change the structure, Democrats claimed it was solvent for years yet. It's a political football and both sides would rather see it go under before letting the other side claim credit for fixing it. Separate the complaints and address them on their own merits. If you hate the war, actively work to end it. If you want SS restructured, work on that and same with education. Just quit saying "if only" because it isn't a real argument.

I guess we'll never know what that money would've been spent on, will we, since Prince George done spent it on the war. I post the dollars we're bleeding so as to give some perspective to figures such as "$12 billion," "$750 million a day," and such. Comparisons to, e.g., Social Security help do that. Plus, as the CBO's website says, all this stuff is interconnected; it truly is a manifestation of the "guns vs. butter" debate.

BTW, I agree with you about SS being a political football, but George's "fix" was to put SS funds into the stock market, and he was properly called for "illegal procedure." Sum***** shoulda stuck to baseball.

I didn't disagree with the idea that the government should keep their end of the bargain. All I said was people should nopt count on it because the future is uncertain and the government is lousy at business. They overspend on everything and that's republicans and democrats. SS is a lousy investment is all I'm saying.

$1 trillion
The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war

Buy government bonds to hedge yourself against your share!

I think a trillion is about what the government funnels from SS annually to make sure the deficit is only $300B.
Clinton never balanced a budget. He stole from SS just like everyone else has.

Bush wasn't trying to fix it, he was trying to eliminate it.

And it is solvent, as long as the government honors its obligations. Bush wanted the government to walk away from them.

Well we didn't walk away so I guess it's ok, what's all the fuss about?

Well we didn't walk away so I guess it's ok, what's all the fuss about?

who's this "we"? you part of the administration now? I didn't know they had an Office of Presidential Ass-kissing?

Anyway, back to your point, Bush would have, if the Dems hadn't actually grown a pair and stopped his plans cold. If they hadn't, right now, you'd have a nice personal savings account invested in the stock market. And since you're an old man, you couldn't afford the losses you would have sustained over the past few months.

But the Dow is still up well over a thousand points since early 2005...so who lost again?

This is what happens when people rely on the government for their financial security. Why would anyone do that? Especially over the course of a lifetime? Things can change from generation to generation. Diveristy in all things is prudent. Don't put all of you stock in the government my friend.
No, that's happens when corporations have a bigger influence over OUR government. We are second class citizens compared to the pseudo-individuals and the investment class, and we're told it's for our own good. Heck, we're convinced that they are a natural part of our existence, and that they are vital to our way of life (ie, tax breaks [for the rich], which will be then invested back into the economy). There's a Cuckoo in our nest, and we don't recognize it.

Additionally, the cost of the war and all of the related costs is about 2% of GDP. No small change, but not breaking the bank either. Cut back on some pork and they can pay for the war without any problem at all.
We're still a producer nation? I could have sworn that we were changed our name to China when I stopped seeing the Made in U.S.A on our products.

The US is no longer a "producer nation". We are a service nation and that too is being exported. Americans have priced themselves out of their jobs. Workers around the globe are willing to work for less, much less.

In the 60s and 70s, conservatives had a tax and tarriff mentality and were countered by liberals who saw that as the US hegemony - we were starving the World and stealing their resources was the mantra ofthe day. Now the tide has turned and they're still unhappy. What's the answer? Who knows.

The US is no longer a "producer nation". We are a service nation and that too is being exported. Americans have priced themselves out of their jobs. Workers around the globe are willing to work for less, much less.

In the 60s and 70s, conservatives had a tax and tarriff mentality and were countered by liberals who saw that as the US hegemony - we were starving the World and stealing their resources was the mantra ofthe day. Now the tide has turned and they're still unhappy. What's the answer? Who knows.

technology, entertainment.. weapons?

We are second class citizens compared to the pseudo-individuals and the investment class, and we're told it's for our own good. Heck, we're convinced that they are a natural part of our existence, and that they are vital to our way of life (ie, tax breaks [for the rich], which will be then invested back into the economy). There's a Cuckoo in our nest, and we don't recognize it.


We're still a producer nation? I could have sworn that we were changed our name to China when I stopped seeing the Made in U.S.A on our products.

Well if you exclude Luxembourg and Bermuda, depending on the survey in 2003 the U.S. ranked 1st or 3rd in per capita income. What are you crying about exactly?:idea: