Archive for Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Social Security, Medicare rapidly being depleted
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is shown with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
May 13, 2009
Advertisement
Washington — Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday.
Medicare already is paying out more money than it receives, something that happened for the first time last year. And Social Security will be by 2016, a year sooner than had been projected, the trustees’ annual report said.
Unless changes in Social Security are enacted, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, four years sooner than projected last year. The Medicare trust fund is in even worse shape. It is projected to become insolvent in 2017, two years earlier than expected.
More immediately, the trustees do not expect Social Security recipients to get cost-of-living increases in 2010 or 2011, something that hasn’t happened since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975. The Social Security Administration will set next year’s cost-of-living adjustment in October, based on inflation over the previous year.
“We should neither be casual nor hysterical about the revised insolvency dates,” Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said. “The Social Security system will weather this recession. However, the sooner we get on with the task of reforming the system, the easier it will be to make the tough choices.”
The recession is hurting both funds, which are financed by payroll taxes. The U.S. has lost 5.7 million jobs since the recession began, meaning fewer payroll taxes are flowing into the funds. At the same time, aging baby boomers and rising health care costs are adding to expenditures.
The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government’s “full faith and credit” but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said reducing health care costs is the key to saving Medicare.
“The most effective entitlement reform measure will be a major health reform that helps bring down the growth rate of national health care spending,” Geithner said.
President Barack Obama and Congress have been working to overhaul the health care system with the goal of increasing coverage and lowering costs. But there is no consensus on how to pay for it.
“This report underscores the urgency of action on comprehensive health care reform this year,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “As costs continue to rise, the Medicare program so important to so many American families is put in jeopardy.”
Republicans agreed that health care reform is urgent, but they warned against creating another government-run system.
“When we can’t afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?” asked Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Finance Committee.
House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report “confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree.”
Geithner said the Obama administration plans to tackle Social Security once it health care is addressed. The options for fixing Social Security are simpler than for Medicare, though just as politically daunting: either raise revenues or cut benefits.
Workers fund Social Security by a paying 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 of their earned income. Employers match the payment. Increasing revenues could be accomplished by increasing the tax rate or increasing the amount of earnings that are taxed.
Workers can currently retire with full benefits at age 66. The retirement age is scheduled to gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. One option for cutting benefits would be to raise the retirement age even further.
“Social Security is really a math problem,” said David Certner, director of legislative policy for the AARP. “Can you make sure that the money coming in is the same as the money going out?”
The trustees report projected that Social Security’s annual surpluses would “fall sharply this year,” then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year’s projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.
That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. After the fund is depleted in 2037, annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083.
More like this
- Medicare to go broke sooner than expected March 18, 2003
- Medicare to go broke by 2019 March 24, 2004
- Health care costs to top $8,000 per person 42 comments / February 24, 2009
- Checkup shows Social Security, Medicare trust funds ailing May 2, 2006
- Tax receipts showing biggest drop since Great Depression 1 comment / August 4, 2009
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- City caters to its increasingly diverse population with culture, food offerings November 28, 2009 · 4 comments
- Woman sees image of Jesus on her iron November 28, 2009 · 27 comments
- Season salvager? Jayhawks say win today could ease sting of season November 28, 2009 · 17 comments
- Anger control November 27, 2009 · 31 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 39 comments
- 3-step approach to health care reform November 27, 2009 · 29 comments
- Black Friday shoppers get early, cheap jump on gifts November 28, 2009 · 10 comments
- One dead after car-motorcycle accident near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009 · 32 comments
- Woods hurt in accident November 28, 2009 · 3 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 104 comments
- One dead after car-motorcycle accident near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009
- SNL actor in ‘House' November 28, 2009
- For Markieff Morris, the screen’s the thing November 28, 2009
- Progress comes slowly in processing disability claims March 15, 2009
- Papa does preach: Call to ministry can run in the family November 28, 2009
- Western Kansas byway planned November 28, 2009
- Woman sees image of Jesus on her iron November 28, 2009
- ‘It’s about time’ November 28, 2009
- The Oread Hotel targets concerns over fire November 27, 2009
- Feds seek easements on 1 million acres November 26, 2009
13 May 2009
at 5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ChrisNyberg (Anonymous) says…
I can't believe team Obama have not figured out to just print more money.
13 May 2009
at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
Social Security and Medicare are just great big Ponzi schemes.
If an individual devised this so-called social “security” he would be sent to jail, and rightfully so.
13 May 2009
at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Printing money has been Obamas answer for the rich people of the country. Why isn't he taking care of eveyone else by printing money?
Maybe after his pig flu issue he doesn't think that there are people that need to be saved?
13 May 2009
at 7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/12/…
13 May 2009
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
How we can have two creatures like Pelosi and Reid in congress at all is a indictment of how bad we've become as a nation.
Wow!
Then we throw in Sebelius to handle Health and Human Services?
Wow!
Not to mention a Commander in Chief that redefines clueless when it comes to defending America.
Wow!
13 May 2009
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xbusguy (Anonymous) says…
Social Security, Medicare rapidly being depleted
––––––––––––––––
Kathy is really on top of this…. just like the Kansas mess.
13 May 2009
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
SS and Medicare are out of money, yet Obama found a trillion to pay for kickbacks to his supporters. Watch him get re-elected too. Can the republicans get their s*** together and put Ron Paul up in 2012?
13 May 2009
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Wow!
13 May 2009
at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
All I can say to all of it is:
WOW!!
(And god help us all)…..
Wow!
13 May 2009
at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Music_Girl (Anonymous) says…
Lesson to be learned: don't depend on the government for your retirement! Start saving when you are younger (20's) and you will have enough to retire on your own without the “help” of the government and all their red tape.
13 May 2009
at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Music_Girl (Anonymous) says…
“Lesson to be learned: don't depend on the government for your retirement! Start saving when you are younger (20's) and you will have enough to retire on your own without the “help” of the government and all their red tape.”
No, it won't help. With the coming hyperinflation your savings won't be worth anything.
13 May 2009
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
We're going to be playing a new game. It's going to be called:
Countdown to Retirement—Scramble!!
WOW!!
Scary times ahead folks and the sad thing is Obama, Geithner, Pelosi and Reid will be loooooong gone by the time this looming disaster is fully realized. I hope there is alot of government cheese available in 20 or so years at least.
Wow wow wow!!!
God help us all!!
13 May 2009
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Music_Girl (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One, It's a better plan than sitting around and hoping the government will have the money to pay you.
13 May 2009
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
feeble (Anonymous) says…
SS isn't close to being out of money, yet. Insolvency date on SS is 2037. SS can be fixed quite easily, there are a number of plans on the table that cut benefits, propose very modest changes to payroll taxes, or some combination of the two. The problem with SS isn't finding the money, it's finding the political will.
Medicare, however, is looking pretty boned.
13 May 2009
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One is very possibly right. And, if neither social security or savings is going to get you a retirement, your best bet is to live your 30s and 40s like you expect to die at 65. Even if you are barely surviving and eating cat food at 70, at least you won't have to feel bitter that you spent your salad days working 60-hour-weeks and saving 30% of your income.
13 May 2009
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
feeble (Anonymous) says…
“SS isn't close to being out of money, yet. Insolvency date on SS is 2037. SS can be fixed quite easily,”
That's the current date, expect it to be adjusted closer quite rapidly as the Obama stock market bubble begins to burst as the year goes on and we experience economic depression. Plus the amount of unfunded liabilities is in the $100 trillion range. There's no easy fix.
13 May 2009
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
Obama's fix = ration care of those in Medicare, higher death rates among Medicare users(most of whom are Social Security recipients) = pragmatic solution. Send Joe Biden out to pitch this “solution” as patriotic.
13 May 2009
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
Okay, this is really dumb. We've known about the Social Security issue for 10+ years and people are like “why hasn't Obama fix't it yet?”. Why didn't Bush, or Clinton, or Bush II fix it??
The reason why no one has fixed it is because it's not politically easy to do so. No one wants to be blamed for raising the payroll taxes or cutting the benefits which are the only real fix (not the stock market, that's for darn sure). So they're going to put it off until the last minute.
As far as Medicare goes, the Republicans went farther than just doing nothing. They actually made it worse by wedging in the Prescription Drug bill during the first Bush term. But they seem to have conveniently forgot that. The first step to fixing Medicare (and probably the second and third steps) is to get the costs under control.
And, as a side note, it's funny how all the private insurance lobby likes to vilify public health care, but I seriously doubt they would be willing to take the people who benefit from Medicare into their plans if they have a choice. It would cut too much into their bottom line.
13 May 2009
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
Of course Medicare is going to be costly. Take care of the most expensive people (the elderly) so private corps can make profits on covering the less-expensive cases.
Imagine how expensive private insurance would be if they were forced to cover 80-year-olds. Or how quickly they'd dump them off their rolls if they weren't forced to. Medicare has been a relief valve gift to the insurance companies. Without it, single-payer would have won the political debates decades ago.
Just like if there were public schools taking all the special-needs kids and private schools could pick-and-choose among the gifted. Of course those private schools would cost less and perform better.
13 May 2009
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Thinking_Out_Loud (Anonymous) says…
MyName wrote “The reason why no one has fixed it is because it's not politically easy to do so. No one wants to be blamed for raising the payroll taxes or cutting the benefits….” Hence, the expression, “the third rail.”
“…politicians got the message loud and clear that Social Security was sacred to the American people and tinkering with it—no matter how noble the intentions—was tantamount to political suicide.”
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/soci…
13 May 2009
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
MyName (Anonymous) says…
Okay, this is really dumb. We've known about the Social Security issue for 10+ years and people are like “why hasn't Obama fix't it yet?”. Why didn't Bush, or Clinton, or Bush II fix it??
_________________________________
Actually, SS has had issues for more than 10 years. But your point is well taken. I have never understood why the ceiling on payroll taxes is so low. So the poorer folks (earnings < $106,800 pay 6.2% of their earned income. Employers/self-employers match the payment) are expected to cover fulfilling the SS needs of the country, while folks that make an abundance more don't pay more, but can (and do) still collect.
I say lower the % and take the cap off. All you young people, start having kids! We need more young people to pay into the system!
13 May 2009
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
“SS isn't close to being out of money, yet. Insolvency date on SS is 2037. SS can be fixed quite easily,”
Really? I thought I just heard the date had recently been adjusted from 2017 to 2016.
13 May 2009
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
“I say lower the % and take the cap off”
Yes, completely remove any and all notions that it is a retirement plan, and make it completely clear that the purpose is to plunder the populaiton.
13 May 2009
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The contributions to Social Security will become less than the benefits paid out in 2018, based on the trustees' overly pessimistic assumptions. (See “Social Security Isn't Broken” and “The SSA's Cracked Crystal Ball,” D&S November/December 2004, at .)
But that doesn't mean that the Social Security Administration will need to start selling bonds at that point. The interest income from the existing bonds will be sufficient to make up the difference until 2028. If the trustees' pessimistic assumptions are true, they will need to start selling bonds in 2028 and the trust fund will be reduced to zero in 2042. At that point, as I mentioned above, the Social Security system would simply revert back to pure pay-as-you-go, operating just as it did successfully from 1936 to 1983.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…
13 May 2009
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
“I say lower the % and take the cap off”
Yes, completely remove any and all notions that it is a retirement plan, and make it completely clear that the purpose is to plunder the populaiton.
––––––––––––––––––––—
It's not plundering the population. Maybe you never had a grandmother who raised 3 children during the depression (who all died early on and could not support her) and she died in a hell hole of a retirement home a week after I found her. You probably think SS is just another hand out to folks that don't deserve it after working their a$$ off their whole life and are lucky if they make it to collect. It breaks my heart when I see some of the employees where I work that should have retired along time ago, but cannot. One woman in particular has arthritis so bad she can't even stand up straight, and her eyesight is so poor she can barely read the monitor as she takes customer service calls. She never complains, and she always smiles and says hello in the hall. And you talk about plunder…
13 May 2009
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Life's tough and then……
13 May 2009
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Turning Social Security over to Wall Street would not be a smart idea. This last episode would have cost Social Security an estimated 50% loss. Coverting SS to Wall Street would have cost taxpayers $4,000,000,000,000(trillion) ….not a smart move. What a way to bail out Wall Street!
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…
Wall Street is a gambling casino. If one cannot afford to lose money stay away from Wall Street.
Wall Street after all is not the economy it is a high rolling betting game.
All of those who lost on Wall Street will be happy that Social Security and Medicare is around. Just as were the savings and loan victims in the 1980's, ENRON victims,Maddux victims, high tech victims and all of those who wind up broke for one reason or another. Social Security may not take you on Aspen ski ventures bit it can keep one above poverty plus medicare. Life could be worse.
Social Security is an insurance plan not a risky investment scheme.
13 May 2009
at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
Maybe if I will not benefit from SS, I can quit paying into it and just invest or save the money myself. Can't quite stomach the idea that I pay into it and it won't be there for me down the road. Just let me take care of myself is all I ask.
13 May 2009
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
SS doesn't work.
What the country needs is Universal Healthcare. Healthcare for everyone will be a snap! If everyone is covered SS will be cheaper!!
All Obama has to do is print more money! People will line up to be a doctor or a nurse to get Obama's money. If Universal healthcare is started under Obama, life will be so much easier!
13 May 2009
at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
barry, you need to lay of the drugs man.
13 May 2009
at 6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Tom, all I can respond with is Wow! Just Wow! And to think, John McCain would have fixed both systems by now had he been elected. Wow. I mean simply Wow! you know, just Wow. It is, just Wow.
Wow.
If Republicans are opposed to continuing national funding of Social Security and Medicaid, then they should just come out and say so. I think they should build their platform around this very concept. “Down with Social Security, Down with Medicaid — vote Republican!”
I mean, like, Wow!
13 May 2009
at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
“Okay, this is really dumb. We've known about the Social Security issue for 10+ years and people are like “why hasn't Obama fix't it yet?”. Why didn't Bush, or Clinton, or Bush II fix it??”
Exactly right, it has been well over 10 years that this problem was known to be lurking. Why was nothing done? Same reason everything else is screwed up, people decided who wins the american idol is more important than taking their role as a citizen seriously(rights that millions around the world would love to have) and being aware of what's going on and even more importantly, not trying to figure out how to get something from the government and thinking what is best for the country. People actually believed all the pretty commercials and thought if they just didn't think about the real issues everything would just be fine. We get what we deserve.
13 May 2009
at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
OzChicklet, justify it all you want, but theft is theft. Just because the government does it does not make it moral. And your sad story is ludicrous. Are you telling me that you are so selfish that you wouldn't help a relative in need? Instead you demand that the government steal money so that YOU don't have to help her. What a selfish person you are. If you see poor people, help them yourself, don't steal from other people.
13 May 2009
at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
What's particularly sad about folks like Ozchicklet is that they are completely oblivious about the real purpose of SS—just another way to raise taxes. When it was first conceived, they didn't think very many people would actually live long enough to collect many checks, so they raided the SS funds until it was dry. That's called a Ponzi scheme. When Bernie Madoff does it we get angry and throw the book at him. When the government does it, OzChicklet et al. defend it!
14 May 2009
at 6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hear_me (Anonymous) says…
It's sad that there should be money for social security, but the government spent it elsewhere. Tip O'Neil tried to protect the coffers, but was unsuccessful.
I agree that we should remove the cap on collection. We should probably limit who is elligible. Everyone should pay in, because you do not know if you will be a millionaire when you retire, but those who are millionaires do not need social security payouts.
What people do not seem to realize is that we should take care of our elders. If we do not use social security, what will we use? It troubles me that younger adults talk about social security with such disdain. It's not a gift. The money should be there. I suppose we could develop a set of laws to make children personally responsible for their elders.
14 May 2009
at 6:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
hear_me (Anonymous) says…
“It troubles me that younger adults talk about social security with such disdain.”
It troubles me that you think theft is moral when the government does it. What frightens me is how many people agree with you.
14 May 2009
at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
#
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
OzChicklet, justify it all you want, but theft is theft. Just because the government does it does not make it moral. And your sad story is ludicrous. Are you telling me that you are so selfish that you wouldn't help a relative in need? Instead you demand that the government steal money so that YOU don't have to help her. What a selfish person you are. If you see poor people, help them yourself, don't steal from other people.
___________________________________________
Yeah, I'm so selfish…I invited her to come live with me in my little 700 sq ft house, and support her best I could. Although she required constant care with dialysis. I'm sooooo selfish, all I can say is WOW….I donate money poor people that I don't even know. I do volunteer work for the American Cancer Society. I don't need to tell you everything that I do, because I'm so selfish, I don't want to share that information with you….WOW…
14 May 2009
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
momfromlawrence (Anonymous) says…
In commenting to Hear Me, I agree that we should limit who is eligible. There are families who receive SS because their child has a 40% hearing loss. Those families really don't need the money that was originally meant for the elderly. Millionaires can take care of themselves, where as those elderly who had to struggle paying taxes and were not able to save are the ones who desperately need our help.
One person said that maybe the younger generation should start having more kids. How is this going to solve the problem? There aren't enough jobs right now for the younger generation to start paying their share of the taxes. I think that we should start taxing everyone!!!!!!! The illegals do not pay taxes. They are taking jobs that our kids could be doing. Do you know that there are more illegals working than those laid off? The whole system needs to be looked at again.
As for Medicare, there are families who can't afford insurance through their employer's plans. I for one can't afford my health insurance. It would take on paycheck to pay for it. The rising cost of the premiums and the deductible makes it hard for families to afford health care. I think that health care should be provided to everyone with the same benefits, and you pay according to your wages and family size. Although the family size doesn't always work either. When a family of four with only one adult does not equal the family of four with two adults.
14 May 2009
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
Well said hear_me. I think the best lesson for young people is to spend some significant time in a third world country, and actually see how an extended family exists. And no, the visiting young person is not allowed hide in a hotel from culture shock. I bet they come back to the states saying WOW.
14 May 2009
at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
momfromlawrence (Anonymous) says…
One more thing that I forgot to mention. Why do the tax payers of the hard working Americans have to pay for those illegals who are going to be released from prison and put on welfare or the Gato prisoners who are going to be put in American prisons for us to support? I say that those illegals who are in prison right now need to be deported and those in prison in Gato need to stay there. We have enough problems trying to pay for the Americans who are on welfare right now having babies just to stay on welfare that we don't need illegals to pay for as well.
14 May 2009
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
Yep, I wish there was an option to NOT pay into SS and then NOT reap the benefits (or non-benefits as the case will be) later on. Would have been nice to invest all that money into my 401k. I've dumped over $100K into SS and don't expect to get a cent of it back. And now we want our government to run the health care system…
14 May 2009
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
@momfromlawrence
I confess! It was me that made the comment that folks should have more kids ;-) I forget that I'm anonymous so you don't know my sense of humor. But hopefully, by the time the babies are old enough to be gainfully employed, the employment situation we are in now, and the illegal worker situation will be improved.
14 May 2009
at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
So what happens to folks that don't want to pay into the system, and then some horrible disaster happens like a heart attack (or worse), and they have to spend all their retirement savings before planned? OR, what happens to folks that don't want to pay in, and then don't save, and then when the time comes to retire, there is no money? What do we do with them? Do they become homeless. I think this would turn into a huge problem. It's easy to say “that's their fault”, but we would have to deal with a lot more people in that situation and it would affect us enormously.
14 May 2009
at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Oz, you are selfish if you demand that I pay for something that you want. You can prattle on about how you've done your “fair share” but that doesn't give you any right to steal from me. And you talk about third world countries, you should take another look. They are poor because of corrupt governments that steal from the people—exactly what you advocate.
15 May 2009
at 8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OzChicklet (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One - you are clueless. I am not stealing from you. You are the selfish one because you do not want to help your fellow Americans that are less fortunate than you. There are a lot of complications in third world countries and the majority of those people suffer as a result of their corrupt governments - it's not rocket science. What I advocate is certainly not what is happening in those countries. I take it that you feel we should ignore all the issues in these countries and all the affected people because of their corrupt governments. I suspect you've never spent much time in third world counties, and if you have, you probably stayed at a 5 star hotel above the stench of it all. Have a piece of cake and a nice day in your limited reality.
16 May 2009
at 6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Getting robbed by the government to pay for programs that buy votes is not helping your fellow Americans. You are a brainwashed tool if you think it is. You are stealing from me if you advocate taking my income from me without my permission. Just because the government is the actor doesn't change the nature of the act. Theft is theft, and you are a thief if you support it. Get your greedy, selfish hands out of other people's pockets. It's not your money.
16 May 2009
at 7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtop…
16 May 2009
at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the picture I'd say beware because he is too close to Wall Street and Wall Street wants your tax dollars flowing directly to them.
No one would have any input once a switch was made. Wall Street cannot be trusted. If Wall Street is down like now, and has been several times before, a retirement will have to wait until. It took Wall Street 24 years to bounce back to point A once it bottomed out in the 30's.
When you begin trusting bought out politicians and Wall Street perhaps it's time to see a therapist.