"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:55 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in
about 20 years

That is 10 according to the 2006 trustee's report. SSA.GOV

You're right.
You said and I said it. Fix it. The fix is right there in the
conclusion posted below. It's right there in black and white.
Pick any suggested method. I'm fine with any of them.
None will even show a blip on the economy.
Let's see if the Dems get it legislated.
Then everybody can quit crying about the "Looming SS Crisis" and how
it's a Ponzi scheme for the next 75 years and start worrying about
Medicare instead.
Or maybe they'll just keep whining about SS "because it's there."
.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/T...s.html#wp76460
quote
Conclusion

Annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2017 for the combined
OASDI Trust Funds, which are projected to become exhausted and thus
unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2040
under the long-range intermediate assumptions. For the trust funds to
remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined
payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner
equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.02 percentage
points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner
equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent,
general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.6 trillion (in present
value) could be made during the period, or some combination of
approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be
required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years.

The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way
to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to
provide advance notice to workers. The sooner adjustments are made the
smaller and less abrupt they will have to be. Social Security plays a
critical role in the lives of this year's 49 million beneficiaries,
and 162 million covered workers and their families. With informed
discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will
ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations.
end quote

--Vic

Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the
employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General
Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years.
And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize
10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS
and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come
from?

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the
employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General
Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75
years.
And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we
legalize
10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS
and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come
from?

Willie Wonka's Money Factory?

Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed
back.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:



Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the
employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General
Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75
years.
And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we
legalize
10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS
and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come
from?

Willie Wonka's Money Factory?


Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed
back.


Kevin must be demonstrating once again why he is the "king"

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them
situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some
thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate
goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only
alternative is gridlock.

Three observations:

1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes
dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the
other one.

2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its
ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional
oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather
than personal attacks.

3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive
election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other
words, nothing new.

I agree. I hope #3 is wrong.

Dreamer.

Max

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork.

Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line
Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the
Presentment clause of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York


"
On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law
Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University
Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the
Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed
legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto
Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment
Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996
Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act
is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion
to establish procedures to govern its internal operations.

The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006
by a vote of 24-9.[1]

"

Harsh.

(But so true...and so delicious)


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:42:21 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them
situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some
thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the
Senate
goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only
alternative is gridlock.

Three observations:

1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes
dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the
other one.

2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost
its
ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional
oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather
than personal attacks.

3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive
election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other
words, nothing new.

I agree. I hope #3 is wrong.

Dreamer.

It's already starting. Murtha wants to be Majority Whip.

And all those Blue Dog Democrats - oh, boy, this is going to be
interesting.

And now I just read that the new head of the House Intelligence
Oversight committee is going to be Alycee Hastings.

Anybody remember Alycee Hastings?

And now, it appears that Rep. Jane Harmon who was in line to get the
job until the new Speaker decided she was too "hawkish" is under
investigation by Justice because of her close ties to The American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) itself under investigation for
violating the Espionage Act in the Lewis Franklin case.

Harrumph - hell, it ain't even been two days and already the Dems have
ethics problems.

It's only a matter of time until some gay Democrat starts taking 17
year old male page to Spain on a trip and essentially rape him. Or
maybe even start a prostitution ring out of his apartment.

Oh wait - that's already been done.

My bad.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:30:43 -0500, wrote:


That assumes the government can come up with the extra revenue to
honor the trust fund.
There has never been a revenue squeeze like this before so we can't
look at SS history. It has ALWAYS run with a large surplus.
This is exactly what happened to Ponzi when the outgo exceeded the
amount from new suckers and he had to actually try to make the stamp
scam work.
Where in the hell is the government going to get the money to redeem
the trust fund bonds? Are we really going to raise taxes $200 Billion
(inflation adjusted) by 2017 PLUS the amount needed to redeem SS bonds
and the ones we are printing now for the other deficit spending?

Since I've always favored Navy, courtesy demands I answer you, then
I'm really done with this thread. Fixing SS revenues now with any of
the SSA proposals immediately pushes that 2017 redemption date back.
The SSA report doesn't mention to what year, but if you want to run
the numbers, you can extrapolate to get an approximation.
Bottom line is that fixes it for 75 years.
Another bottom line is nothing is free. You pay for what you get.
Right now in Florida there are 10's of thousands of people worried
about their insurance and tax bills. Some are leaving Florida.
That's just how it works. This country has been in debt for years.
Anybody can believe anything they want about SS, and work to change it
however they want, but in the end old people won't be starving on the
streets of America. The money will be there to keep that from
happening. Somebody is going to fork over the dough no matter how
much they whine about it. I've forked out the max SS for years
without whining about it, and I'll fight like hell to get some of it
back. Could be big recessions or some type of depression on the
horizon. Hell if I know, but America will survive.
I just want to get my boat and do some fishing before the **** hits
the fan.

--Vic

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:27:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

I just want to get my boat and do some fishing before the **** hits
the fan.

Now that's the smartest thing anybody has said in this thread yet. :)

Just need a boat, fishing poles and guns and a list of the local Mormons.

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:13:04 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the
employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General
Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75
years.
And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we
legalize
10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect
SS
and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to
come
from?

Willie Wonka's Money Factory?

Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it
payed
back.

Of course - why didn't the politicians listen?

Why - why - why?

Why, Oh Why

Why can't a dish break a hammer?
Why oh why oh why?!
'Cause a hammer's a hard head.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Why, oh why, oh why oh, why?
Why, oh why, oh why?
Because because because because
Goodbye goodbye goodbye

Why can't a bird eat an elephant?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause an elephant's got a pretty hard skin.
Goodby goodbye goodbye.

Why can't a mouse eat a streetcar?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause a mouse's stomach could never get big enough to hold a
streetcar.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Why does a horn make music?
Why, oh why, oh why?
Because the horn-blower blows it.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye

Why does a cow drink water?
Tell me why n why?
Because the cow gets thirsty just like you or me or anybody else.
Goodye goodbye goodbye.

Why don't you answer my questions?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause I don't know the answers.
Goodby goodbye goodbye.

What make the landlord take money?
Why, oh why, oh why?
I don't know that one myself.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Why's there no pennies for ice cream
Why, oh why, oh why?
You put all the pennies in the telephone.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Why can't a rabbit chase an eagle?
Tell me why, oh why?
'Cause the last rabbit that took out and chased after an eagle didn't
come
out so good and that's why rabbits don't chase after eagles that's all
I
know about rabbits and eagles?
Because because because.

Why ain't my grandpa my grandma?
Why, oh why, oh why?
Same reason your dad's not your mommy.
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Why couldn't the wind blow backwards?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause it might backfire and hurt somebody and if it
hurt somebody it'd keep on hurting them
Goodbye goodbye goodbye.

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork.

Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line
Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the
Presentment clause of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York


"
On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University
Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown
University Law Center testified by written statement before the House
Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with
the proposed legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative
Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and
Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised
in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that
the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants
Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal
operations.

The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14,
2006 by a vote of 24-9.[1]

"


Actually do not need the line item veto, just overturn the court ruling that
the Executive branch had to spend all money allocated by the legislative
branch. Worked for nearly 200 years, until after Nixon was tossed and the
Congress got such a ruling.