Ve'hoe

No, it really is NOT,,, because I was in on budgeting during my time in the service,,, and SS funding was not needed,,, so fly your next trial balloon.. but fly it t***hfully

Ve'hoe

Sure we do, have "simple" yet very hard answers to our "complex problems". The govt has to live within the budget of revenues collected. It is just that simple and just that difficult, some of the freeloaders have to die, and I don't want the defense to be shirked.

"Mandatory Federal Spending"
Medicare - $524 billion
• Medicaid - $304 billion
•All other mandatory programs - $621 billion. These programs include TARP, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans. (Source: OMB, FY 2014 Budget, Table S-5)

How Is Social Security Funded?:

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. Through 2017, Social Security collects more in tax revenues than it pays out in benefits because there are 3.3 younger workers for every beneficiary. This created a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. So when less people are working = less SS money coming in,, related to the horses**t lies of the Obama regime, about unemployment paying cause it doesn't, it costs.... twice.

In 2008 the first of 78 million Baby Boomers turned 62 and became eligible to draw down benefits, coinciding with the "recession" cause they {lying stealing politicians couldn't pay the bills and keep padding their pockets and buying their v**es for re-e******n. Over the next 30 years, there will be fewer and fewer workers per retiree to support Social Security via payroll taxes. By 2036, the surplus will be depleted. The Social Security payroll tax will only be able to pay 77% of projected benefits. The rest would have to come out of the general fund. However, the shortfall could be covered by an extra 2.22% increase in payroll taxes. Not too mention that a great deal of expense is pissed away on SS for people who are disabled, and never paid in, which was NEVER what it was meant to do.


How Is Medicare Funded?:

Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues. Because of rising health care costs, general revenues would have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030. As with Social Security, the tax base is insufficient to pay for this.
Medicare has two sections:
•The Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance program, which collects enough payroll taxes to pay current benefits.
• Medicare Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance program, and Part D, the new drug benefit, which is covered by premium payments and general tax revenues.


How Does Mandatory Spending Affect the U.S. Economy?:

With so much of the budget dedicated to mandatory programs, the Federal government is restricted in discretionary spending. This is one reason President Obama asked for health care reform.

In the long run, the high level of mandatory spending means rigid and unresponsive fiscal policy. This is a long-term d**g on economic growth.


Why Mandatory Spending Keeps Growing:

Federal law dictates that all mandatory programs must be funded. For this reasons, they are outside of the annual budget process that governs discretionary spending. These must be approved each year via 13 annual appropriations bills. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, Mandatory Spending Control Mechanisms)

Military budgeting is "Discretionary" and only 58% of the discretionary budget.

The Social Security Act of 1935 is the Federal law that set up the Social Security retirement program. The Federal government must, by law, pay retirees their benefits. Other Federal laws require the government to provide benefits to people with disabilities, people under a certain income level, and the unemployed. The mandatory portion of the budget simply estimates how much it will cost to fulfill these Federal laws.

It literally takes an act of Congress to change a mandated program. For example, Congress amended the Social Security Act to add Medicare. However, Congress has a difficult time reducing the benefits entitled under any mandated program. Most consider it political suicide because such cuts guarantee v**er opposition by the group receiving less benefits. As a result, mandatory spending continues to grow.

Here's an example of recent years. Mandatory spending was:
•$2.203 trillion in FY 2013
•$2.032 trillion in FY 2012
•$2.073 trillion in FY 2011.

The Mandatory Budget Dilemma:

Demographics means that, at some point, Congress must bravely bite the bullet and amend the laws that created these mandatory programs. The first Baby-Boomer turned 62 in 2008, becoming eligible to retire on Social Security benefits. By 2025, those aged 65+ will comprise 20% of the population. As Boomers leave the work-force and apply for benefits, four things happen:1.The percentage of the labor force under age 55 does not provide enough income via payroll taxes to fund Social Security benefits.
2.Economic growth slows as government spending becomes almost exclusively focused on paying benefits for these mandated programs.
3.The debt comes closer to Japan's crushing burden of a 200% debt-to-GDP ratio.
4.The dollar weakens as investors in Treasury bonds switch to currencies in countries with brighter growth prospects.

Choices for FY 2014 and Beyond::

As a result, Congress will have to choose among the lesser of three evils, none of which are good for the economy:1.Dev**e more of the budget to pay Social Security benefits. This would reduce defense spending, the largest discretionary budget item. It would also constrain the government's ability to stimulate the economy in case of recession.
2.Increase the overall size of the budget. However, to fund this increased spending, either taxes would have to be raised, or the debt further increased. Either would slow economic growth.
3.Decrease the benefit amount paid to retirees. This is the most likely scenario. This would force able-bodied Boomers to continue working.

So, you either CUT the Budget, now or go over the fiscal cliff and crash the system.

The TEA Party is right, the Dems are lying thieves, the REpubs are nutless wussies without the spine to do what is needed. Otherwise those who have paid in are going to get screwed and the money they were charged for SS went to the welfare ass-oles, and unwed moms for the 2 million taxpayer funded a******ns per year for the last 30 years...

So,,,, blatantly interpret that...

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

Blatant. Extreme. Destructive. Absolutist. Simplistic. Wacko. Read the Tea Party platform introductory statement of situation.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

You know, the only problem I have with the tea party is - it's full of politicians. That creature may have different colors, but the stripes are the same. Too bad that.

Ve'hoe

You mean this???


Mission Statement


Propelled by millions of Tea Party supporters across the country, Tea Party Express has become the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena. We are committed to identifying and supporting conservative candidates and causes that will champion tea party values and return our country to the Constitutional principles that have made America the “shining city on a hill.”


Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles:
•No more bailouts
•Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government
•Stop raising our taxes
•Repeal Obamacare
•Cease out-of-control spending
•Bring back American prosperity


Yeah that is sure wacko and extreme,, or do you prefer the current trajectory over the waterfall??

Ve'hoe

No,,, it really isn't. It is filled with regular people, unsophisticated some might say, I say "Untainted" with corruption and the polished ways of the current political snake oil salesmen.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Really? How many of them are in DC? The only one's I see sure look like politicians to me.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

No, I'm referring to the introduction to the Tea Party Platform with rant at length about Obama as a fraud. Stupidity.

Ve'hoe

What the hell are you talking about??

Right now, only a few politicians are even talking to the teaparty, which is growing in strength. Are you talking about those politicians?? Name some names so I know whom you are speaking of.

Ve'hoe

Can you give me a site??? I have searched the internet and cannot find what you allude to.

Ve'hoe

Why don't you actually GO to a teaparty meeting before bad mouthing and ridiculing them,,, then I would be more tempted to listen to you,,, however, I have, and they are NOT what the main stream media claims.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Major: I've spoken ill about you in the recent past, for some reason I recalled you as being, well let's just say less patriotic. In the last few days I've read some of your posts, and I feel as though I owe you an apology. Especially if what you wrote above, is truley how you feel. (I refered to you as "major limp noodle") and I apologize.


Now there!,,, is a uniquely American trait. (To be on topic)

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I thought Ted Cruz was tea party and Ryan. I thought they had a whole caucus full of them. If they're tea party and NOT politicians, then I AM confused.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

I can finally agree with something you wrote, you ARE confused

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Haha! I remember that! Well, it depends on the subject as to whether we agree or not as I don't have a "party" line. But I always mean what I say, unless I'm joking, but I try to make the jokes clear. Thanks for that though. I just wish we all could capitalize on the things we do agree on.

There are LOTS of folk who exemplify the "good" American traits. We just need to get them up to DC somehow.