Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP civil war reminiscent of our own, except for the 'winning later' part (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not necessary? (0+ / 0-)
    The aging of the
    baby-boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population receiving
    benefits from Social Security and Medicare, as well as
    long-term care services financed by Medicaid. Moreover,
    per capita spending for health care is likely to continue
    rising faster than spending per person on other goods and
    services for many years (although the magnitude of that
    gap is uncertain). Without significant changes in government policy, those factors will boost federal outlays relative to GDP well above their average of the past several
    decades—a conclusion that holds under any plausible
    assumptions about future trends in demographics, economic conditions, and health care costs.
    According to CBO’s projections, if current laws remained
    in place, spending on the major federal health care
    programs alone would grow from more than 5 percent of
    GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037 and would continue to increase thereafter.1 Spending on Social Security
    is projected to rise much less sharply, from 5 percent of
    GDP today to more than 6 percent in 2030 and subsequent decades. Altogether, the aging of the population
    and the rising cost of health care would cause spending
    on the major health care programs and Social Security
    to grow from more than 10 percent of GDP today to
    almost 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now.
    That
    combined increase of more than 5 percentage points for
    such spending as a share of the economy is equivalent to
    about $850 billion today. (By comparison, spending on
    all of the federal government’s programs and activities,
    excluding net outlays for interest, has averaged about
    18.5 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.) If lawmakers continued certain policies that have been in place
    for a number of years or modified some provisions of
    current law that might be difficult to sustain for a long
    period, the increase in spending on health care programs
    and Social Security would be even larger. Absent substantial increases in federal revenues, such growth in outlays
    would result in greater debt burdens than the United
    States has ever experienced.
    (pdf warning)
    http://www.cbo.gov/...

    If we do nothing, Social Security benefits for seniors will be cut by 25% in 2035.
    Does that sound to you like we can sit and do nothing?

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:12:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  the solution is crushingly simple, and has already (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      been pointed out a gazillion times:

      raise the fucking salary cap.

      We don't have to bomb the village in order to save it.

      •  It takes a really sick, twisted person (0+ / 0-)

        to lie about cutting Social Security benefits for poor, elderly people, right?

        What kind of hell hole did these people crawl out of?  Where do people so cruel and dishonest get the idea that they're Democrats?

        It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

        by Betty Pinson on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:35:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Cutting benefits is not the only solution (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, brae70

      to a temporary demographic bulge.

      My grandfather was born in the 1880's.  Social Security wasn't enacted till the mid 1930s yet he was still receiving Social Security benefits when I began paying payroll tax in the '70s.  Boomers have supported both the WWI (who were not paying into Social Security for much of their working years) and the WWII generations.  You can't just not support us because there are a large number of us.  

      And I am fed up with the Democratic Party acting like we're a bunch of old geezers leeching off young people.

    •  No, its not necessary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, a2nite

      First, its wrong to assess the situation during an extended period of high unemployment, which temporarily depresses contributions to payroll taxes.

      Full employment and a higher minimum wage will go a long way towards fixing any longevity issues.

      Second, if, after fixing the problems above,  additional funding for the Trust Fund are still called for, there are other options that don't involve cutting SS payments to low income seniors.

      What kind of asshole Democrat would recommend taking money away from elderly people (mostly women) who are trying to get by on $800 to $1,000 a month.  

      You want to take money away from that pitiful little amount of cash?  From people who are living on a fixed income and don't have the option of earning more money?

      WTF is wrong with you and others like you? What kind of sick people are you?

      It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:30:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What kind of an asshole (0+ / 0-)

        Would think that a 6% cut in benefits is worse than 25%?

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:41:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site