The Donald should pat himself on the back and claim "I built it"!

Hey Trump, you are part of the problem, a big part.

WOW how racist can this F%$#er get!

At the same time, he said Europeans who want to immigrate to the U.S. and who have children who do well at American universities should be allowed to stay.

What he meant to say was... Lets prioritize WHITE immigrants... when are legitimate legislators going to show this guy the door?

This is part of why the business mentality (i.e. Republican, conservative, pro-austerity) should not be the guiding principle in our country.

What matters in that mentality is beating out the others. The end justifies the means. What matters in that mentality is the bottom line, not its effects on people. We need people in there who will remind us of the bottom line, but we do not need that to be our focus and our goal.

Why should we be careful about immigration reform? Nothing to do, of course, with the well-being of our country and people. He says we need to be careful about immigration reform because it will hurt Republican chances of winning.

As long as winning is more important to Republicans than America, we have to make sure that they keep on losing!

Putting serious in the same sentence with Trump is journalistic malpractice!

No one sports a squirrel they way the "Donald" can...

My vision of the Trump mind ...... a room full of monkeys with typewriters.

why are people still printing what he says?

To LOSMAN: There are no legitimate Republican legislators if you talking about legislators with courage and integrity. They don't care where they are or what their values are, they just know that once they get through their primaries, its clear sailing in their Gerrymandered districts. Thats all they care about, and if the crazies can deliver that - they are going to be just as crazy - they will out do the crazies. It's slow death for Republicans - but hey that's fine with me. Eventually, those Republican counties and districts will change - It's just going to be a lot of bullsh*t in the meantime. It's not cool to be Republican anymore - and that message is catching on.

The GOP has been successful in building an entitlement society for the wealthy and big corporations by duping the working class into believing that society would not exist without these job creators, and that all the ills and struggles the working class faces is because the working class is still not contributing enough to support those job creators.

Once the working class quits buying into this faux reality our society will succeed.

Roy,

I think your on to something! The GOP should push the Dem's to raise taxes enough to PAY the full bill. Once they realize that even if that tax income above $250K at 90%, they still need over $600 BILLION in taxes, which would force everyone elses taxes to double!

Rick-3416939.........Both sides create entitlements. Republicans fight tooth and nail to protect entitlements to large corporations, banks and the mega wealthy. Don't think for 1 second that these tax breaks, gifts and sweetheart deals with the wealthy are anything but entitlements. Both sides are fighting hard for entitlements, the only dispute is who the beneficiaries will be. So far the rich and the corps are winning hands down !

Then we lose. And this is the reason I am no longer registered Republican.

I am tired of the Republican Party not standing up for principles and fiscal responsibility.

We are told a John McCain must be nominated because nobody else can beat Obama - then get beaten soundly. Why? Because the Republican Party shifted away from fiscal responsibility and conservatives "stayed home" and didn't vote. A vote for McCain is not much better than a vote for Obama.

Then told Mitt Romney must be nominated because nobody else can beat Obama then get beaten soundly.

We have a George W. Bush that borrows over $4 Trillion over 8 years while we conservatives are yelling "STOP BORROWING!!". All that does is give "fuel to the fire" for liberals. they say "how can you be AGAINST borrowing when YOUR guy did it for 8 years!!". And you know what? They are right.

No, I personally will no longer vote for someone who does not have strong fiscal views. That means reduced spending, smaller government, and following the Constitution. A choice between a person like Obama or McCain? Sorry, no difference to me.

So Trump may be right - maybe there are enough uninformed voters that don't understand the damage of our out of control entitlement programs - but they must be cut to save this country and I don't want a candidate that is going to dig this country deeper in despair. And if we lose then we lose but then it will be clear WHO is responsible for the collapse of this nation and that will be liberal views and policies.

Last time I checked, illegal aliens aren't supposed to be able to vote.

What the country needs is something between a Democrat and a Republican. Someone who supports SS & MC, but is willing to cut everything else. The difference between SS and everything else, is that we pay into SS and we deserve it back. However, the fraud and ridiculous, uncontrolled spending of the obtrusive, self-staining government must be brought under control immediately!

Rand Paul come to mind, if he would only support SS fully.

ROY WILSON-336103....so who is arguing ? Oh, thats right, the republicans are.

Donald Chump is todays version of P. T. Barnum. No one will ever take him seriously from now on. I actually think he is a Kardashian!

Roy's FACTS above forget two unfunded unnecessary wars, unfunded unnecessary tax cuts that Bush Jr. bestowed upon his corporate and rich friends.

They touch social security or medicare I will never vote for another Republican. You so called "conservatives" don't want any so-called entitlements? I paid for my social security out of every paycheck I ever earned. I payed for my medicare starting in 1965 out of every paycheck after that, and never asked for either one, never had a choice in the matter. How about you guys pay for your kids to be picked up by the school bus (make it private), how about you pay every time a cop drives through your neighborhood, how about you pay for your share of the streets, sidewalks, bridges, freeways, trash pickup, fire departments, and all else that the government supplies for you. The big one - pay for national defense, maybe you chip in extra and they put your name on a cruise missile or smart bomb. Make them all private, and see how long it takes for the price to skyrocket. You people have forgotten what the government is for.

He's right about the immigrants. No reform. They already have a path to citizenship but they refuse to floow it. They want it there way so they can come as they want, have a baby and then live off welfare. If not, then why would anyone fleeing a country for a better life, come here ILLEGALY, steal a SSN and then get a menial job and have a child? They want the welfare. How is it so many have lived in this country for years but don't speak English? A small child would learn in that time...they CHOOSE to not learn and assimilate...and that is exactly why we need to make the national language English.

ProBusiness, you perspective on Republican/conservative approaches to fiscal responsibility are fascinating . . . arnd wrong.

WHEN have conservative policies EVER been successful? When pursued by the US they have led to depressions and recessions (unless delayed by wars which obscure the failures). They only result in the transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. When pursued by other countries they have led to extended recessions or indefinite stagnation. The liberal policies are often those suggested by modern, and proven, economic policy makers and are proven successful . . . see Clinton and Obama legacies for proof. Reality trumps rhetoric and myth.

For a reality check on taxes please check out Warren Buffet's recent interview on this site.

Here's a hint, even after that so-called nasty tax increase on the rich, Buffet will still be paying a lower tax percentage on his income than his staff.

ProBusiness

Roy, you are right.

Republicans should say "no" to further borrowing. Tell Democrats that if they want to spend the money they MUST put forth a budget that will PAY for these items. When the low information voter realizes their taxes will more than DOUBLE to pay for this (not just the "rich" but EVERYBODY'S taxes will double) THEN they might realize how out of control our spending really is.

The Republicans should so "no" to no more borrowing and become the fiscal vice and try to get things in order and make their actions match their rhetoric. Only one small problem with that... All that money coming in and they aren't going to get their piece? You mean you want them to quit writing legislation with pork that helps their districts?

ProBusiness, I know we may not always see eye to eye, but c'mon man. These are politicians. Sit back and just think about what you know a politician is going to do and you know how it's going to work.

The problem is that we know both parties like to spend recklessly, particularly if spending that money keeps them in office.

"But on the other hand, he also said the party should not jump too quickly on immigration reform because the 11 million undocumented immigrants would vote Democratic."

Wow, just wow. I love how he puts that right out on the table. It doesn't matter whether immigration reform will save the country money or start the process of fixing that broken system that is a huge part of our labor force in Agriculture, construction, etc. -- and the immigration status quo is costing Americans billions in taxes to pay for education, health care, prisons, etc. No, what's important is that they won't vote Republican, so make sure you don't fix that problem even though it's a huge drain on the economy.

ProBusiness, the Democrats have been, the difference of opinions is that the GOP thinks that we can balance the budget without cutting any of their programs or raising taxes on the rich.

Most Americans don't think that, they just know they're hurting and don't care if they have to raise taxes on the greedy people that are bogarting all the economic growth that came the last 30 years.

ProBusiness...

McCain lost because of the whackjob Palin... not because he was that bad of a candidate.

Romney lost because he was out of touch and has the stink of the wall-street types who game our economy on him.

twodogsloving "They touch social security or medicare I will never vote for another Republican. You so called "conservatives" don't want any so-called entitlements? I paid for my social security out of every paycheck I ever earned. I payed for my medicare starting in 1965 out of every paycheck after that, and never asked for either one, never had a choice in the matter."

Your thinking is very common, and right to some extent, but it overlooks a VERY IMPORTANT FACT.

While you did pay into both Social Security and Medicare, YOU DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH FOR YOUR BENEFITS.

While you want to collect 100% of the benefits you expect to receive, the total amount paid into your 'Trust Funds' by you and your employers is only about 60% of the estimated cost for your benefits.

Here's an interesting FACT from Obama's 2013 Budget projections;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net DEFICIT in the Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare programs of $8.311 Trillion.

Where is that money going to come from? Two choices (or a combination of the two);

1 - Much higher taxes on everyone.

2 - Cuts in 'entitlement' spending.

In summary, the 'status quo' is unsustainable, and both Parties know it - The Republicans want to discuss the issue, but the Democrats say 'leave everything alone'.

Who do YOU think is right?

Conservative posters are still spouting untrue, misleading information. It's a shame that they are so ill informed. One of the major reason that Republicans are shrinking on a national scale is that they are so resistant to facts and truths that they cannot move away from their fundamentally flawed beliefs. The main mistakes Roy makes - (1) he ignores trends. To him, a guy who inherits a surplus and turns it into a giant deficit is no worse than a guy who inherits a giant deficit and turns it into a surplus. (2) He ignores relative size. According to him, FDR didn't spend much money at all when president because the deficit was so small in an absolute scale. His misuse of data is pathetic yet typical of conservatives who have to misrepresent in order to pretend that their really deeply stupid policies are not as relatively terrible as they are.

And Trump? What an immoral moron! He doesn't want to support entitlements for the good they do (like minimize old age poverty and provide the best healthcare in America, which is medicare). He sees it purely in terms of vote pandering! (And what a dim view of Americans these conservatives have - they despise us.)

Aside: All the fear over the national debt is exaggerated. The national debt grows during Republican policy years, like Reagan or Bush, at double digits compared to the GDP. Currently, it is very close to flat (see ygraph.com/chart/1347). Why? Because Obama is a hellava lot smarter than our conservative posters or the GOP politicians.

With leaders like Donald Trump how could the GOP possibly go wrong? :D lol

twodogsloving - We do pay for those other things, they're called federal and state income taxes, property taxes, where I live you pay an ambulance and fire tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. Your tax payments to social security are NOT deposits to a personal retirement account. They are tax payments to the social security trust fund. You are not paying for your retirement you are paying the the retirement of current beneficiaries. Same thing with Medicare. I know exactly what the government is for and it is not to steal from the rich and give to the poor. It is not to grant handout after handout after handout when we are already spending more than we take in. Granted we MUST care for those among us unable, either temporarily or permanently, to care for themselves, but we are clearly creating an entitled culture where the government is seen as the endless supply of assistance rather than relying on ourselves and each other. Engaging in "litmus test" politics (do this one thing I don't want and I'll never vote for you) is short-sighted and idiotic.

If the GOP wants to stay relevant in upcoming elections, they need to find a way to stay relevant to a significant % of the population!

You can throw all the money and lies you want at an election, you still won't fool a majority % of voters - as proven in 2012.

Time to change your views..... not your message GOP. Find a way to bridge the gap between what you say and what you mean.

Time to stand behind the middle class and lower class in stead on ON TOP OF THEM. And cut the strings that the wealthy use to control every move you make. The top 1% is exactly that; JUST 1%.

There's that arithmetic coming up again!

Conservatives during Obama's first 6 weeks "what is really important is the stock market. Look, it's fallen over a thousand points! When is Obama going to take responsibility!"

After the stock market bottoms out and recovers "What is really important is the GDP! We are stuck in a recession."

After the GDP rate turns positive and the recession ends. "What is really important is corporate profits! When is Obama going to let businesses make profits?"

After corporations make record profits. "What is really important is jobs! When is Obama going to create new jobs?"

After the unemployment falls 2.5% in 3 years. "What is really important is medical costs! when is Obama going to reign in medical costs?"

Well, medical spending went up less in the last 3 years than at any point in the last 50 years, which is a good start to saving medicare. But the real solution is to recognize the problem - read Time Magazine's cover article Bitter Pill. The medical industry is ripe with corruption and gouging. Insanely so. Like charging patients obscene fees for their bedsheets and even the doctor's gown, and the little paper cups that pills come in. HMOs have so brainwashed our conservatives into supporting their own fiscal abuse, it is crazy. You want to lower medical costs by half and save medicare? It is very easy. Allow a public option. That will frighten HMOs into being reasonable. So I don't want to hear conservatives say "medicare has to be reformed." No - they need to be less brainwashed. Allow early buy-in to medicare (so the healthy young will pay for the old) or a public option. That will put us on the same footing as Canada or Australia or any other nation with healthcare costs half of ours.

GOP is in serious trouble because it consists of people that invite Trump but not Christie.

Until conservatives get on board with entitlements and use their energies to hone and streamline the system, they will only be a roadblock on their own street. We get it, there is fraud and waste within these systems. It is being addressed during Obama's tenure, but when you have one of the two main political parties too busy pointing fingers, demonizing the entire program and inadvertently shunning 47% of the population it's not accomplishing anything.

Get on board or get out of the way already! Your game is old, stale and boring...... just like your constituents.

noncoms -

Nail on the head!

Not only do they continue to "move the goal posts", but then they point at Obama and say he is "moving the goals posts". It's disgusting the levels that some of these GOP "leaders" are willing to stoop. They have nothing, so instead of climbing aboard and finding a way to assist Obama with his mission, they only know how to make things worse. For Obama and for 80% of the United States population.

Well, he's right about one thing. Pandering to Hispanics won't make the GOP popular again. Besides that, it's just the wrong thing to do. Trying to gain the loyalty of a huge demographic by "giving them gifts" the way the pundits accuse the Democrats of doing? They really believe that's the only way to get votes? To tell people what they want to hear and promise them anything? Even if it conflicts with your core message or what you're telling someone else?

Jeez, how about just establishing your values, being consistent, and appealing to the independent, educated voter with reason and logic? Stop treating the electorate like idiots. Maybe some of them are, but why do you want them as your core?

Two great post that I saw Non-coms, it seems we can no longer claim to be the greatest country on earth, with the U.S. and its poverty level, and the nearly 50 million people (only country on earth with that many) without access to basic health care simply because economic stature, our education system and pretty soon our high standard of living is in danger. Non-coms, this is what happens when republicans rule the roost. Austerity measures never work in favor of those that need it most. But those that need it least get even more of the pie. Sad to see our once great country slip into the same stature of human rights as those countries that we are enemies with.

PJ, CPAC is NOT the GOP.

It would like like saying the OWS IS the Democrat party.

Trump & his BF Dennis Rodman.... giving advice.

The Democrats have been successful at building an entitlement society. Liberals want, and what they want they now expect the government to deliver.

This is actually pretty true. The reason, of course, is that we are paying for it. The middle class pays a heck of a lot of taxes and even the poor pay Medicare and social security taxes and gets a slightly lower wage because everyone is required to have unemployment insurance; effectively we are all paying for unemployment insurance. That is why we have an entitlement society - we paid for it and so we are entitled for it.

Or are you unclear on what the word "entitlement" means?

LosMan123 - And we have been letting in folks from the 3rd world since the 1965 immigration reform act. How well as that worked for us?

Why not start giving white Europeans a chance at coming to America?

Of wait - it is racist if the white man gets anything.

The GOP has been successful in building an entitlement society for the wealthy and big corporations by duping the working class into believing that society would not exist without these job creators, and that all the ills and struggles the working class faces is because the working class is still not contributing enough to support those job creators.

It's also rather amazing how the GOP has managed to shift the dialog away from the biggest problem facing this country. We don't have enough jobs. That used to be Boehner's mantra till 2010, till he came into power, and then forgot all about it.

We don't have enough jobs. If we had enough jobs, the deficit would not be a problem, people would be earning and paying taxes. So one would think that politicians would be focused on creating jobs.

But no...they are focused on cutting spending and putting people out of work so that our deficit problem gets worse. And the country has pretty much given them a free pass on it.

LosMan123 - And we have been letting in folks from the 3rd world since the 1965 immigration reform act. How well as that worked for us?

Extremely well. About 1/3rd of the innovation that we get in this country comes from these 3rd world immigrants; Chinese and Indians. Go to any Silicon Valley CEO company directory and look up the names of executives and lead engineers. Look at the names of the scientists who write research papers.

Why not start giving white Europeans a chance at coming to America?

Of wait - it is racist if the white man gets anything.

No one is preventing them. But if you want to talk about value, there is no doubt that recent immigrants have contributed extremely significantly to American prosperity. It's when our visa standards tightened that India started becoming a technological powerhouse; these Indians just stayed home and built their companies and infrastructure there.

Rick-3416939

Rick, I think you think it is only Lefties that are on the dole. The southern states like Mississippi are, per capita, getting more entitlement money than states like California or NY, which is where much of the tax money comes from.

Soon much of the Tea Party mooches will wake up when they learn that Right Wing austerity will bite them on the ass big time. Then the Democrtats will have yet another voting block added.

Sleep well.

If each person paid their share of govt. spending, they would pay over $12,000 per year. I do not know anyone paying that amount of money. But the money has to be coming from somewhere. Those of you that think big corps. or the oil industry get entitlements are nuts. Yes you are nuts. They are the ones paying your $12,000 per year plus their share as well.

Lets keep the entitlements and run the country into the ground. That is the current plan.

Well said LTCKOHL!

Roy, while I generally agree with most of what you post, this statement is not indicative of everyone:

While you did pay into both Social Security and Medicare, YOU DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH FOR YOUR BENEFITS.

While you want to collect 100% of the benefits you expect to receive, the total amount paid into your 'Trust Funds' by you and your employers is only about 60% of the estimated cost for your benefits.

Having been a business owner for a substantial part of my career, I do know that most self employed people pay way more than they ever get back from so called "entitlements".

Remember that the self-employed pay into SS on their GROSS TAXABLE income, not their net taxable profit/income. They also pay in twice as much per dollar earned. I will have to live until I am 100 to re-coup my SS investment...so why can I not have it all back now?

I am sick and tired of hearing that the corporations and wealthy get "entitlements", how is paying tax an entitlement? What makes people think that they have a right to the return on someone else's investment? I say flat tax...no exemptions, everyone pays the same %.

Make poor houses out of the empty buildings and give NO ONE cash, food stamps, etc unless they live in the poor houses.

But, I am all for taking the ceiling off of SS taxes on EVERYONE. Just like being self-employed!

Most of these Conservative so called "leaders" and pundits are dicks. That's the simple reason they will never win again.

Trump is typically Republican, born on 3d base and thinks it was hard to come home on a double. He is classical closet bigoted rich dude who forgets that he represents the low hanging fruit to the downtrodden and he needs one of them to protect his wealth. People must think that events of history of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer does not apply to them...News Flash: History does repeat itself if you mix the same ingredients.

Haggis... if you think Trump is a "leader" then you've been watching to much left wing "news".

lessthan 99,

Tell me, are Europeans or white immigrants being adversely affected by immigration policy in this country? I am not sure where you live in the US but in the northeast there are plenty of immigrants from all over, and in my opinion i would say about 8/10 came here by way of a visa and overstayed... same as crossing a border illegally in my opinion.

and to 2nd what Byron said... it has worked out very well thank you!

bdjbforfun

What the country needs is something between a Democrat and a Republican. Someone who supports SS & MC, but is willing to cut everything else. The difference between SS and everything else, is that we pay into SS and we deserve it back. However, the fraud and ridiculous, uncontrolled spending of the obtrusive, self-staining government must be brought under control immediately!

Rand Paul come to mind, if he would only support SS fully.

Fully? Rand Paul doesn't support Social Security at all! As to the rest of your statement I detect some Tea in your discussion. So you want to cut entitlements so long as they aren't YOUR entitlements..."keep UR guvmint out of my Medicare". What about disabled veterans? Should we cut funding to them? Cut the only decent meal a huge number of school children have access to? Perhaps you'd like to cut the Dept of Agriculture or Customs and Border Patrol...how about the CDC and FEMA? Next time there's a disaster in your neck of the woods...don't ask for guvmint help.

They want contreceptives, turn to the government. They bought too much house, turn to the government. They over spent on their credit cards, turn to the government. They have student loans from college, turn to the government. They feel their neighbor has more then they need, turn to the government to make it fair. There is just no end to the wants from liberals, and they feel the government should provide.

Heck yeah Rick! And don't forget, if you trash your bank through predatory lending, turn to the government. Over extend your ability to cover insurance to the insured, turn to government. Lose your money at the casino Wall Street, turn to government. Wanna get the guy who threatens to get your Daddy, turn to government. Want to earn more money on a gallon of gas, turn to government. Want to make more money farming, turn to government. Those 47 percenters along with the conservative capitalists all with their hands out going, "gimme, gimme" are looking more like 100 percent. Funny how every one wants something for nothing. Even conservatives and capitalists!

Byron and LosMan - are you 2 living together?

You guys must live in an alternate reality. The country is going broke paying for these 'immigrants'.

The average recent immigrant family consumes 1 million more in social services over their life than they contribute in taxes.

You can't make up for a million dollar loss by letting more in.

The correct solution would be to restrict immigration as a whole, or let in more white European's who will actually work and not live on the dole.

If you want to pay for them - fine, lets raise your taxes.

But don't make me pay for your desire to live in a 3rd world dump.

Having been a business owner for a substantial part of my career, I do know that most self employed people pay way more than they ever get back from so called "entitlements".

And if you really have been a business owner, you also do know that you are not paying any more self-employment taxes than anyone else. The cost is just half-hidden for people who are not employed by themselves, because their employer pays half of their social security taxes, unemployment insurance and the like.

Beyond that, if you are a business owner, you also know that the cost of anything is what the market will bear. There are more than 180 governments out there. If you don't like what the US is selling, go to another vendor. No one is stopping you. Here, you get security and an infrastructure to run your business. If you like, you are welcome to buy the same in another 3rd world country or wherever else pleases you. This is a free country. No one is forcing you to stay, no one is forcing you to keep your citizenship.

I am sick and tired of hearing that the corporations and wealthy get "entitlements", how is paying tax an entitlement?

Ummm...do you have any clue what you are talking about? The banks got free handouts after they had wrecked the economy. Oil companies get public lands handed to them for a pittance. The taxpayer is being soaked left and right.

What makes people think that they have a right to the return on someone else's investment? I say flat tax...no exemptions, everyone pays the same %.

Are you sure you want this? Because right now, the rich pay a much lower tax percentage than the rest of us. As Warren Buffet often points out, he pays a lower rate than his secretary.

Hey ...i am a not a white guy ...but i would like America to remain a white majority nation.

Look - i have nothing against non white people. I think taken individually any non white person can be better than any white person.

However, taken as a group, if non white people knew how to build societies/nations like America, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Canada etc - they would have built one by now. Don't you think ?

Look what is happening to South Africa. I mean obviously i am not condoning apartheid, but ever since they made the white people leave and try to run things themselves, it's been in decline and now it is pretty much like opther African hell holes with complete breakdown of law and order even in Johannesberg. Same in Nigeria.

RobWI "Roy, while I generally agree with most of what you post, this statement is not indicative of everyone: While you did pay into both Social Security and Medicare, YOU DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH FOR YOUR BENEFITS. Having been a business owner for a substantial part of my career, I do know that most self employed people pay way more than they ever get back from so called "entitlements". Remember that the self-employed pay into SS on their GROSS TAXABLE income, not their net taxable profit/income."

Perhaps I should have distinguished between Social Security and Medicare. While Social Security is relatively sound (although some 'tweaking' is needed to maintain solvency), Medicare is a disaster because of expensive new medical treatments and longer lives. Over the next 10 years, the taxes collected from Medicare taxes will only fund about 41% of the costs, and the difference will have to be funded with Deficits/Borrowings/New Taxes.

By the way - You only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on your income AFTER expenses.

lessthan99%

Just so you know, among all the immigrant groups, Indian Immigrants from India have the lowest unemployment/welfare numbers and an average household income of 65 grand which is twice the national average.

If you really want to get people who would come and work - open the flood gates to India.

But i think you are the kind who is influenced way more by the color of the skin than by the work ethics of a potential immigrant.

Roy,

Do you support an update in the SS age? I believe a few stdies have shown that by increasing the retirment age by 1 month every year for the next 24 years will make SS 100% solvent for the next 75+ years.

lessthan 99,

what the hell are you talking about over there! what proof do you have that Euro immigrants here, legal or not, somehow are a net plus here in the US economy vs South Americans, Asians, or Africans? prove your bull$hit!

Immigrants pay taxes along with the things they buy, they start businesses, and are lawful. Latino or not... I have known dentist, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals here in this country illegally... and we can debate if this is write or wrong, but the point i am making is that if you are already here and you have a family you cant very well go out and find a job in these fields because you need to have legal documentation. So you go out and do what you can, where ever you can! The most people that are living off the dole are white southerners... and that is a verifiable fact!

get the illegal immigrants off the systems and send them home ..SS an entitlement ? then pay me what Ive paid in and let me invest it myself , bet i end up with more than $1200.00 a month when I'm ready to retire

PJ-1795048 "Roy's FACTS above forget two unfunded unnecessary wars, unfunded unnecessary tax cuts that Bush Jr. bestowed upon his corporate and rich friends."

The Debt and Deficit figures quoted in Post #1.17 for Bush INCLUDE all the costs of "two unfunded unnecessary wars, unfunded unnecessary tax cuts that Bush Jr. bestowed upon his corporate and rich friends."

By the way - I'll bet you were strongly in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone except the rich. You get the best of both worlds - Blame Bush AND get the benefits of those tax cuts.

Johntho

Two great post that I saw Non-coms, it seems we can no longer claim to be the greatest country on earth, with the U.S. and its poverty level, and the nearly 50 million people (only country on earth with that many) without access to basic health care simply because economic stature, our education system and pretty soon our high standard of living is in danger. Non-coms, this is what happens when republicans rule the roost.

The poverty level has increased, is increasing now, and will always increase for one main reason: the poor in every demographic produce the highest number of offspring.

This has been aggravated by Democrat policies at every turn. LBJ's Great Society subsidized the poor single-parent households - especially blacks and other minorities, and paid them for each child they had. This directly led millions of poor to have many children to get the extra benefits (paid for by working people). These children in turn reproduce early and often, exacerbating the already high numbers of impoverished people. A big problem has now been made much worse!

No matter how much money is confiscated from those who work hard, obey the law and get an education before procreating, the numbers of poor will outpace that effort. The poor need an opportunity for upward mobility and they'll never get that from the Democrats.

The Democrats treat the poor like a drug dealer treats an addict: give them a small fix to keep them hooked and coming back for more. The drug dealer cares only about his own accumulation of territory and bling. This is NOT compassion. This is ruining an entire society for leftist political gain. It's sick, it's dispicable, but it WORKS!!

TO: ProBusiness who wrote:

"...I am tired of the Republican Party not standing up for principles and fiscal responsibility... That means reduced spending, smaller government, and following the Constitution...maybe there are enough uninformed voters that don't understand the damage of our out of control entitlement programs - but they must be cut to save this country and I don't want a candidate that is going to dig this country deeper in despair. And if we lose then we lose but then it will be clear WHO is responsible for the collapse of this nation ..."

ProB, what you seem to not understand is that the horse is already out of the barn, and we know exactly WHO is responsible for the collapse of this nation -- Republicans. In spite of you saying you want fiscal responsibility, which you had under Democrat Bill Clinton, and in spite of you saying you want everyone to abide by the U.S. Constitution, none of that ever seems to apply to Republicans!!!!!

Compare 8 years of Democrat Bill Clinton to 8 years of Republican George W. Bush.

As for entitlements, those of us who had money taken from our paychecks against our will and without our permission were promised our money would be there for us in our retirement, and for ANYONE to try to rob of us our money, which was taken on that promise, is a thief.

@ROY: YOU DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH FOR YOUR BENEFITS.

You're believing everything they're telling you, just like they want. What about the millions who died before filing for their social security, what about the millions more who will die before drawing much of it? What about the interest on that money? And what don't you understand about making the government responsible and accountable for what they take your money for? I don't believe that fund is going broke at all, and the first thing the repubs want (after starting 2 wars, which is REALLY where all the money went) is to cut from the poor, aged, and sick. Then they'll run down to church on Sunday and be good Christians. I want what I've got coming, and not one dime more. I'm not relying on any of it for my "retirement", but I worked for 50 years since age 17, full time and paid into it, now I want what they promised back out of it.

@Joe: short-sighted and idiotic.

I think you're being short-sighted and idiotic. I fully expect my government to be responsible and accountable for what they institute. They have the huge deficit because of 2 wars, not because of SS or medicare. Also, I was generally referring to how conservatives complain about big government when I said privatize it all. What's the difference how it gets there, it's all out of YOUR pocket, right? Doesn't matter if it's sales tax, property tax, or income tax, you are paying for all of it. We pay these legislators very well to represent us at every level of government, and when they arbitrarily take money from us for programs they think is in our best interest, then they MUST be held accountable for them. After Bush/Cheney, who really caused this huge deficit I'm on the verge of not voting repub anyway, but if they want to start cutting at the bottom, then that seals the deal for me.

Chip D-2844144 "Roy,Do you support an update in the SS age? I believe a few studies have shown that by increasing the retirment age by 1 month every year for the next 24 years will make SS 100% solvent for the next 75+ years."

Gradually increasing the retirement age by 2 years makes a lot of sense, because people are living longer because of medical advances. They did it in the mid-1980, and it's time to review the issue again now.

twodogsloving,

Your comments prove you aren't so good at math.

The majority of people who pay into SS for 30+ years will never get as much back as they put in.

What Trump is saying is that the welfare dregs in this country have reached "critical mass" and any attempt to cut their free stuff will result in a backlash.

Going forward, the party that will prevail in upcoming elections is the party that promises the ever growing contingent of society's leeches the most stuff.

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements as some would have people believe, because most recipients have paid into these programs their entire working lives.

TO: ROY WILSON-336103 who wrote:

"Gradually increasing the retirement age by 2 years makes a lot of sense, because people are living longer because of medical advances."

Would you like to be 67 years old and out looking for a job, competing for the same job as a 23 year old?

Increasing the retirement age is only meant to put our own money beyond our reach so that the government can keep it, instead of the government keeping its promise and returning our money to us at retirement. The retirement age used to be 62, now its 65 or 66.

Medical advances? Why are Republicans holding vote after vote after vote to repeal Obamacare? So while they're doing their best to deny us healthcare Republicans want to cite "medical advances" as a reason to refuse to give us our money back as promised?

And some folks wonder why people believe Republicans are stupid.

twodogsloving "@ROY:You're believing everything they're telling you, just like they want. What about the millions who died before filing for their social security, what about the millions more who will die before drawing much of it? What about the interest on that money?..............They have the huge deficit because of 2 wars, not because of SS or medicare."

That's the nature of 'insurance' - it balances those that die early against those that live extended lives. They base the rates on the 'average' life span of recipients, and if you take proper care of your health, you might be a 'winner', but if not, you might be a 'loser' of benefits.

By the way - The government DOES pay interest (about 3%/yr) on your individual 'Trust Fund' balances, which is also factored into the tax rates for Social Security and Medicare. The unfortunate aspect of it is that the government still takes your 'Trust Funds' and just spends them, so all you REALLY have in your 'Trust Account' are pieces of paper (IOUs) that future taxpayers will have to honor - if you live long enough.

ALL of the Deficits over the next 10 years can be accounted for by HEALTH CARE. As I noted in my Post #1.34;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net DEFICIT in the Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is more than the overall Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years.

The reality is that HEALTH CARE is the 'Gorilla' in the room, but nobody wants to do anything about it.

LosMan123 - you can do your own Google searches if you have any initiative.

I am not talking about any specific person - you will always be able to find stand-outs among any group. But since we changed the people we let in via the 1965 immigration act the average 'new' immigrants have been a net drain to the tune of 1 million per family over their lives.

Sorry if this cold hard fact upsets you.

The 'white' immigrants who came before did a heck of a lot better and produced the greatest generation and now you want even more 3rd world folks allowed into the country and wonder why we are in the cra((er financially?

According to merriam webster dictionary an entitlement is:

1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

@Twodogs-

So you are collecting your SS and MC, great you have earned it you worked hard and paid your share. What about people under 35 that are paying in to the program to pay your SS? The program was put into place before the "baby boom" we have more people retiring every day than ever before. People over age 45 should get these benefits they spent their entire lives counting on that money. But the program needs to phased out for future generations, period. It can't survive it will only become a bigger drain on our society. When i get my IRA/401k statements i laugh at the projected monthly income with SS built in, there is no way that program will be paying anything near that number when i retire in 40 years. A lot of people my age see that coming and are not planning on having it, i put away a good chunk of my paycheck every month to retirement but the likelihood of me ever being able to fully retire is pretty slim as long as i am putting money into a broken program. I am not saying i shouldnt have to pay some SS, we owe the generations who build this country that payment but cut that the payment down to a level that is designed to cover every person over 40 SS and give me the rest to invest privately so i have a shot at retirement by the time I'm 70.

I already am assuming i will have a shorter life than the generation ahead of me, the level of financial stress i have already seen and will see is taking it's toll on us. Life is stressful enough trying to pay for my own retirement and needs of my family without adding in millions of other peoples retirement.

Its broke and needs reformed, and for people to say they wont vote for a republican who wants to make changes makes no sense, changes shouldn't effect anyone receiving or close to receiving SS, just the future generations.

AG, you can currently file SS at 62... but let's not let facts get in the way.

Oh and When SS was started you couldn't file until 65... average person lived to 65.

The Republican Party is so out of touch with reality, it is refreshing to see that Trump at least values our so-called entitlement programs. That a worker can labor for years in America and at the end of his life is guaranteed health care and a minimum income sounds fair to me.

Pro Business, you say government spending is out of control, yet government spending is part of our economy. Government workers buy products made by companies just like other consumers.

What is out of control is the share of our nation's income that finds its way into the pockets of the richest among us. The top 1% pulls down 25% of our nation's annual income. Many of us struggle to make ends meet while these richest among us enjoy generous tax breaks and pay a much lower tax rate than they paid 30 years ago. They had their tax rate reduced with the promise by Republicans that this would help business grow faster and help the average American to do better financially. This plan has failed miserably.

Reagan and his Republican cohorts were exceptionally naive. Cutting taxes on the rich and having to borrow it back from them (deficit spending) did not result in more, better jobs, but mainly in higher profits for the rich. Just giving somebody more money does not guarantee that they will work harder. Giving more money to the rich (supply side economics) sometimes just made it more likely that they would value their income more (as they got a higher percentage of it with the tax cuts they were given). This resulted in many of the rich getting more greedy, not less.

Share the wealth more equitably and this economy will grow faster and we will all benefit financially.

TO:

TO: Wet Willy who wrote

"...Going forward, the party that will prevail in upcoming elections is the party that promises the ever growing contingent of society's leeches the most stuff..."

We would have been happy if Republicans hadn't collapsed the entire U.S. Economy and just let us keep our homes and our jobs.

Why is it ok for oil companies get billions of dollars in free government money, but it not ok for the elderly or the poor to get a plate of food?

So Trump is critical of the GOP, and now all of a sudden NBC cares what Trump thinks? Funny how that works.

American Girl-724855 "TO: ROY WILSON-336103 Would you like to be out looking for a job when you're 67 years old"

I wouldn't want to do that at 50 years of age, but that's hardly a good reason to let everyone retire at age 50, with taxpayers paying the bill.

The reality is that Social Security taxes and benefits need to be in balance. We can do that by either raising taxes on current workers, or raising the retirement age. Honest people on both sides an disagree on the proper 'balance'.

TO: KevinT who wrote:

"... Lets keep the entitlements and run the country into the ground. That is the current plan."

That's my money, I paid for my retirement in advance, and I am not going to put up with any idiot trying to steal my money, nor do I appreciate people who have no stake in the program trying to figure out what should be done with my money or how it should be misappropriated !

I'm not even going to address those other idiotic misstatements.

lessThan99%

The 'white' immigrants who came before did a heck of a lot better and produced the greatest generation and now you want even more 3rd world folks allowed into the country and wonder why we are in the cra((er financially?

So, America's "Greatest Generation" was a white only club...interesting. Do you have any sheets without eye-holes in them?

The immigration issue should have nothing to do with race! Zip, zero, zilch, nada! I don't care from what country a person comes from, what ethnicity they have, what religion they practice. Educated, hard-working people who believe in the freedoms that make our country what it is are the ones we need.

The poor, uneducated immigrants who can't pay in taxes what they get in benefits are the ones that become a net drain on the system. A have great sympathy for those that come here looking for a better way of life, but this is a social and economic issue, not a humanitarian one. I wish people would stop accusing anyone opposed to "a path to citizenship" of racism. Maybe some are, but pretending that every single person who comes to the US boosts the economy and deserves to be here is without logical basis.

@whostoblame

I agree with most of what you're saying. All I want is what they said I have coming, and that is one thing that seems to be lacking in our government these days - accountability. They started the wars (and SS and MC deficits pale in comparison to the trillions we owe on them), and now the bill has come due, so the very first things they start talking about is cutting from these social programs. I say not so fast, I want mine. If anyone feels they should end them by attrition, I have no problem with that, as long as it's done equitably.

American Girl,

What if the Government refunded the monies that people paid into Social Security? Would that be acceptable?

Do you Morons Know what makes something an Entitlement, I you worked like 90% of us do We paid into funds that the Government ran and made Mandatory deduction from our Pay Check, but a lot of you that constantly bring up Entitlements probably don't get it, if you pay for something why in the world would you NOT be Untitled to it, Maybe you Republicans don't mind being cheated but I for one mind so don't make my decisions for me. Mind your own business and stop sticking your FU_KING nose in others people affairs. And about that idea of a REFUND sure with intrest For 40 years that's how long I paid into the SS FUND see how stupid an idea that is, that is why We won't listen to MORONS.

Not Untitled but Entitled ... Oops

No one sports a squirrel they way the "Donald" can...

The one on his head?

Seriously folks I logged on today and I am faced with a tory on Mitt Romney and the court jester Trump. both of the true idiots of the republicans. Are there no sane people left in that party that have something to say that has real meaning or are they all waiting for the machine that runs them plugs in what they should say today?

Idiots beget idiots, I assume. The Republicans on this Vine are simply isolated from reality. The American people are not moochers; they are not parasites that suck on the wealth created by the "almighty job creators." Those who take welfare and government assistance do not do so because they think it's efficient; they take the check because they will starve without it. And is that what you want?? An Ayn Randian paradise where those who don't make enough are condemned for being lazy and where those who make their money via speculation and rent-seeking are worshiped by society? You people make me sick; this is why America is in trouble, not because of welfare-sucking moochers or godless liberals but because of hypocritical social conservatives and the idiotic economic conservatives.

ProBusiness

Oh ProBusiness, we meet again. Care to be rebuked by yet another "lefty liberal??"

Then we lose. And this is the reason I am no longer registered Republican.

I am tired of the Republican Party not standing up for principles and fiscal responsibility.

Proof that the GOP is trapped in an alternate reality. Republicans DID stand up for their "principles"; for God's sake they almost shut down the damn government if they didn't get their spending cuts!!! They almost forced a default on our debt for their fiscal ideology; must we actually default in order for you and your fellow extremists to be happy?

We are told a John McCain must be nominated because nobody else can beat Obama - then get beaten soundly. Why? Because the Republican Party shifted away from fiscal responsibility and conservatives "stayed home" and didn't vote. A vote for McCain is not much better than a vote for Obama.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. John McCain didn't lose because he wasn't a conservative; he lost because he was a Republican. The American people blamed Bush 43 for messing up the economy in 2009, and so they didn't trust Republicans with fixing the problem that they made, particularly if the Republican running sounds like George W. Bush.

Then told Mitt Romney must be nominated because nobody else can beat Obama then get beaten soundly.

Mitt Romney TRIED to be conservative; he was as conservative as you wanted him to be. He wanted to have illegal immigrants "self-deport," offered a $5 trillion tax cut to your so-called "job creators," and even supported the draconian Ryan Plan and privatize Medicare. And he STILL lost; face it buddy, Americans have seen the real face of conservatism and have moved on.

thetotas

American Girl,

What if the Government refunded the monies that people paid into Social Security? Would that be acceptable?

Nope. First of all, the deficit would skyrocket if we refunded the money paid into Social Security (the annual payroll tax revenues plus the Trust Fund). Secondly, Social Security was designed to be a secure and basic retirement fund; not a slush fund for investments on Wall Street. People like Social Security; they like the idea of a guaranteed social insurance plan that gives them a stable income when they cannot work. Many employees have some sort of alternative investment plan, whether it be a rare pension or a more common 401k. If we refund the money and allow those people to "invest in the free market," the guaranteed retirement income concept is automatically destroyed and people will be held hostage to the whims of the very speculators and rent-seekers that caused this depression in the first place. I'm sorry if I'm offending your limited government and pro-free market ideology, but I plainly don't trust the free market with people's retirement income, at least not after this Great Recession.

I think the GOP is finally getting it; they must change their image. It's truly a shame they would not let Romney show the world who he really was and what he's done. If they did, we'd have a real President in D.C. and not this joke of a novelty act, whose naivete and narcissism is destroying this country.

Ol_Doc - Um - pretty much so. We weren't inundated with tens of millions of folks from the 3rd world.

The fact that you can't see that demographics have changed dramatically makes me laugh at the blinders you are wearing.

jack-1792739

No Jack, they're not getting it...at all! They are stuck on the messenger. The reason they are rapidly going the way of the Whig Party is that thy have purged their moderates. The American People are not wing nuts and they don't want their government run by wing nuts. The Republican party is obsessed with finding the "right messenger" when it should be concerned with the "right message". Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan wouldn't stand a chance to be nominated in the Republican party now. Do you really think the majority of the American people are going to turn over the reins of power the Republican Party? ...not bloody likely.

lessThan99%

Oh I'm quite familiar with the demographics change. What surprises me is that your party is not the least bit concerned. And I'm not referring those here illegally. Actually that's not accurate, they are concerned, they are simply not willing to do anything about it beyond voter suppression.

Time is not on your side.

lessThan99%

Um - pretty much so. We weren't inundated with tens of millions of folks from the 3rd world.

And you think that is an overnight development? I'll give GW Bush credit for at least bring up the subject of Immigration Reform. It was the rest of his party that wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Yes, Donald, the Republican Party "is in serious trouble" because it calls itself the Party of "family values", but embraces serial philanderers and adulterers, and individuals who have married and divorced numerous times and even fathered children out of wedlock, ... just as long as those individuals parrot the party line of rhetoric.

Yes, Donald, the Republican Party "is in serious trouble" because it calls itself the Party of "the American Dream" and "Free Enterprise" and "American business success stories", but embraces individuals who were born wealthy, who have atrocious records of inappropriate and dishonest business ethics, and serial bankruptcies, ... just as long as those individuals parrot the party line of rhetoric.

Yes, Donald, the Republican Party "is in serious trouble" because it calls itself "the Party of ideas", but embraces individuals who spread whackadoodle conspiracy theories and claims so preposterous as to label the perpetuator of those claims as a 'cuckoo bird' were it not for the party faithfuls blind allegiance to anyone with wealth and perceived influence, ... just as long as those individuals parrot the party line of rhetoric.

Yes, Donald, the Republican Party "is in serious trouble" .... because the American electorate is not yet so dumbed-down that they are unable to perceive the profound hypocrisy of the Republican Party, the stark difference between what the Republican Party espouses and what they actually embrace, ...and the increasingly foul odor.

TO: thetotas who wrote:

"American Girl, What if the Government refunded the monies that people paid into Social Security? Would that be acceptable?"

Absolutely, with interest thereon at the legal rate, every penny, and no excuses!

But that's the kicker, the reason why we constantly hear how Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare, they absolutely refuse to even consider giving us our money back (with interest thereon at the legal rate) because they want to keep our money and give us back nothing.

Rick:

And the anti-liberals want the same government handouts -- but only for wealthy businessmen. They feel that workers can starve, but you gotta bail out the big businesses.

--------------------------------

Trump is correct in that he recognizes that many of the goals of the Republican party will turn off voters. Note: He does not say that he does not share these goals. He only recognizes that they can't pull them off right now.

Social Security was never intended as a savings plan for retirement. Its intent was to pull people out of the workforce. With too many people competing for not enough jobs, wages go down the tubes. And that is what the Republican party wants.

American bigots never change. Always blaming immigrants for how fat dumb and slow they have become.

They didn't like what Trump said. He told them the truth. On the twitter vine, some in CPAC are considering to remove his name from their guest list, next year. Just like how they excluded Gov. Chris Christie from their rolls because he's been acting like a moderate for serving the needs of his state after it got damaged by Superstorm Sandy.

So, you Libbies think you paid into your Social Security and Medicare, right?

This is from a report by the Urban Institute in June of 2011.

OK, let’s consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year.

Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $728,000 in Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services, including prescriptions and hospital care, and Social Security benefits worth $910,000, or about $182,000 more than what they put in.

This is 20% more than what is paid into the Fund.

All amounts are in constant 2011 dollars as noted, adjusted to present value at age 65 using a 2 percent real interest rate. Each calculation assumes survival until age 65 and then adjusts for chance of death in all years after age 65. It also assumes that benefits scheduled in law will be paid even if trust funds are exhausted. Workers are assumed to work every year from age 22 to age 64 and retire at age 65 or the Normal Retirement Age. An average-wage worker earns the average wage in the economy every year, based on Social Security’s measure of the “average wage.” The low-wage worker earns 45 percent of the average wage, while the high-wage worker earns 160 percent of the average wage. The tax-max wage worker earns at the taxable maximum every year. Medicare numbers are net of premium, other than the new premium tax on some high earners.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf

In the case of Social Security, it is already running a cash-flow deficit and faces a $21 Trillion shortfall in the future that is impossible to repay and thus pay any promised benefits past 2037. Ever since Bush's failed attempt to reform SS in 2004 the problem has gotten significantly worse. In 8 years the unfunded liabilities have increased by $6 Trillion. Legally the SS "Trust Fund" is supposed to pay benefits through 2036. After that, by law, benefits will have to be cut by 24%.

Any of you, or your kids, planning to retire in 24 years?

There is no "Trust Fund". Those surpluses are long gone, spent by our "inefficient" bloated government. By the way, does anyone ever wonder WHAT all that money was spent on? But I digress.

There's an old shoe box over at Treasury with a bunch of IOU's in it to pay for your hard earned benefit. Actually they're government bonds that will require to be repaid by taxpayers. Hey, does that mean we'll end up paying twice for the same benefit?

Anyway, other than kicking the can down the road, the options are simple. Congress, at some point will have to raise taxes and/or cut benefits. This is the real “inconvenient truth” none of the Democrats want you to understand. They even go so far as to tell you there is some mythical $2.7 trillion in the Social Security Fund during the last debt ceiling debate. Then they tell you that unless the debt ceiling is increased the government will not be able to send out the seniors benefits. If there is so much money in the fund it should last over 4 years, with expenditures of $686 billion last year, regardless of the debt ceiling.

To return SS to solvency will require raising the current 12.4% to 17.6%, a 42% increase, or increase some other tax. Removing the cap would create the largest tax increase in U.S. history, $ 1.3 trillion over the first 10 years. Even increasing the cap to cover the first $150,000 of wages would amount to $384 billion in new taxes. I don't think that will fly. Even with these increases it would only add 7 years to SS solvency. Typical easy solution that just gives us all pain and no gain. These numbers are even more skewed today because we're all benefitting so much from our "payroll tax holiday". How many times have we heard that meme? The other option is to reduce benefits by 24%, raising the retirement age, trimming COLA, means-testing or changing the wage-price indexing formula. Either way the future beneficiaries will pay more, get less or both.

Personally I would prefer to have the option of investing my own 6.2%. I guarantee you I will improve my benefits at retirement.

But then again that would take the money out of our governments hand to abuse with waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.

Please STOP your incessant indoctrinated talking point that you paid into your entitlements. You paid 80% of it, are you willing to take 20% less than what is being given to you to truly be “fair”? Or don’t you care what will happen to your children so long as you get yours?

Sounds awfully “greedy” to me.

Roy Wilson,

You forget one of the most important reasons Social Security was started in the first place and set up the way it was with the current younger and working generations paying for the current retired seniors was due to inflation. In addition to the inevitable ravages of aging that we all face, when seniors are old and feeble with many chronic, debilitating and serious health conditions, they are also facing an inflated cost of living many times higher than when they first began working or through most of their working lives, so in addition to being old and debilitated they face the highest costs living ever in their lifetimes, and due to inflation it is literally impossible for most middle class and low income people to save enough for these situations in old age. This type of inflation has been the rule for 200 years or more, and unless there is a massive economic collapse and deflation, it will continue. This is why it works so well to have the younger generations who are working at the current higher pay rate that matches inflation pay for the current seniors safety net of SS.

Also, many seniors did not have children or have outlived their children, and have no family to take care of them. Remember the first generations on SS paid very little if any into but yet received it because of this vital fact.

Also, all lower and middle-middle class people have paid into SS at 15% of their incomes in addition to paying many other taxes, including property taxes which most seniors continue to pay after retirement to pay for education, etc. In many states property taxes are already very high, and if SS and Medicare are cut too much, most seniors will not be able to pay property taxes any more or pay their rents (which include property taxes).

The average lifespan in America would soon return to about age 60 if most people had no access to healthcare. Very few seniors would survive to age 70 without access to healthcare. Yet this is precisely what the republicans are working towards. Republican policies would make healthcare accessibility nearly impossible for many Americans and most over age 50 and especially over age 65. Republicans continue to advocate policies that promote healthcare cost inflation, by focusing their main concern on providing any payment to providers instead of care to elderly and handicapped through Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest cause of healthcare inflation is the unpaid bills of the ever increasingly large number of uninsured people; republicans refuse to address this, and want to repeal the ACA, which even though it has many flaws that need to be fixed at least attempts to address this most crucial and ever growing problem, and attempts to reduce healthcare inflation.

citizensarethecountry "Roy Wilson, You forget one of the most important reasons Social Security was started in the first place and set up the way it was with the current younger and working generations paying for the current retired seniors was due to inflation."

Actually, Social Security was started in the first place to provide a minimum 'safety net' retirement benefit for the typical worker, because most people never got around to planning for their future.

It was originally 'set up' to have the workers pay into their individual 'Trust Fund' throughout their working life to build up a reserve of money that they could draw upon during retirement. It was only when Lyndon Johnson started 'borrowing' those 'Trust Funds' to finance his Vietnam War that it became a 'Ponzi Scheme', where the government takes the money and spends it, and gives IOUs in return. What this means is the government collected taxes to pay for workers retirements and then spent it, which requires that future workers would have to not only pay for THEIR retirement, but would also have to pay for the current retirements of PAST workers (double paying).

It had nothing to do with 'inflation'.

Keep the trust fund money in the trust fund and things will right themselves. Particularly if we eliminate the earnings cap on contributions and require contributions for capital gains. But Trump's statements as to social security remind me of my grandma's saying that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Speaking of the kettle calling the pot ...

"…In between his meetings with members of Congress, Obama found time to give a speech before 75 major campaign donors, including Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who paid $50,000 apiece to take part in a fundraiser by Organizing for Action, a non-profit committee supporting Obama's legislative agenda…"

Obama renews calls for slashing Medicare, Social Security

By Andre Damon
16 March 2013

President Barack Obama continued his closed-door meetings with congressional leaders Wednesday and Thursday, seeking to work out a budget deal that will slash more than a trillion dollars from social spending over a ten-year period.

In these meetings, Obama made clear that he is seeking to make deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the core social programs that date from the 1930s and 1960s.

On Wednesday afternoon Obama met with the House Republican Conference and on Thursday afternoon he met with House Democrats, followed by a meeting with Senate Republicans.

In a spending proposal released last month in connection with the debate over the “sequester” budget cuts, Obama called for $400 billion in cuts to the government health care programs Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the implementation of a new measure of consumer prices that would slash Social Security benefits by $130 billion…

…Facing a token show of opposition within his party to slashing entitlements, Obama reaffirmed his determination to make the deeply unpopular cuts. According to Bloomberg News, “Several Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin … said Obama rebuffed their demands for an assurance that Medicare and Social Security benefits wouldn’t be touched in any ‘grand bargain.’” The news service noted that Obama “insisted that Democrats should be open to changes in entitlement programs.”..

…“If we can demonstrate that it doesn’t hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let’s take a look at it,” Pelosi told the press at the Capitol. “Because compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society?”

She added, “If the goal is to strengthen Social Security, if the goal is to strengthen Medicare, if the goal is to recognize the importance of Medicaid and how we make all of these initiatives fiscally sound … then we’re ready to have that debate.”

Pelosi’s arguments are entirely fraudulent. The claim that cutting social entitlements will “strengthen” them, once the stock-in-trade of the far right of the Republican Party, is nothing but a sophistical justification for the dismantling of these programs. The reality is that Pelosi, like the rest of the Democratic Party, supports the evisceration of what remains of the social reforms of the previous century.

The Democrats are seeking to present their agreement to slash entitlements as a response to Republican “intransigence” and a concession to the Republicans in exchange for adopting measures that would raise tax revenues from the rich. In fact, whatever revenue increases may be passed will have a negligible impact on the wealthy and will be more than offset by cuts to corporate taxes, which both parties say they support.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/budg-m16.html

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

JANUARY 4-6, 2013

It's Irrelevant to the Deficit

Take Your Hands Off Social Security

by DEAN BAKER

Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country’s most successful social program.

While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.

The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.

When the bubble burst and the economy plummeted, tax collections fell. We also spent more on unemployment insurance and other benefits for unemployed workers. And we had further tax cuts and stimulus spending to try to boost the economy. The automatic and deliberate steps taken to counter the downturn fully explain the large deficits we have seen the last five years.

Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.

This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream. One of the most widely discussed proposals to avert that shortfall is a revision in the cost-of-living calculation that would be the equivalent of a 3 percent cut in benefits over a typical retiree’s lifetime. (Perversely, the impact will be largest for the oldest and poorest retirees, since people who live the longest will accumulate the largest reduction in benefits.)

An overwhelming majority of the country strongly supports Social Security and does not want to see any benefit cuts. But because of the nature of this budget negotiation process, Americans are supposed to accept the cuts with no revenue increase whatsoever to shore up the program’s long-term financial position.

It is understandable that people who want to cut back or dismantle Social Security would argue for this position. It is difficult to see why anyone else would.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/take-your-hands-off-social-security/

March 13, 2013, 6:00 a.m. EDT

Balancing the budget is a foolish goal

Commentary: Debt isn’t a moral issue, it’s an economic one

MarketWatch

Balancing the budget seems like such a prudent and responsible thing to do, but it’s not. Balancing the budget is a foolish goal, because it would make our economy weaker and it would reduce our standard of living. Read “Ryan plan trims spending by $4.6 trillion.”

The fiscal scolds who have taken over our public discourse are fond of comparing our national government’s budget to the family budget. For example, House Speaker John Boehner said a few days ago that “every family must balance its budget, Washington should, too.” President Barack Obama relies on the same flawed logic: “Small businesses and families are tightening their belts. Their government should, too.”

But does every family need to balance its budget? No, most families don’t. If every family balanced its budget — never spending more than it earns in a year — then few families would own homes or cars, and few could afford to send their children to college. Imagine if you had to save up to buy a home, or a car, or to go to college.

According to the latest survey of consumer finances, in 2010 75% of families had some debt; 47% had a mortgage, 30% owned money on a car, and 19% had education loans. Most likely, nearly 100% have had some debt at some point in their lives.

We know that many families took on too much debt during the housing bubble. We know that high levels of debt in the wrong hands can be catastrophic not only for individuals, families and communities but the nation as a whole. And we know that the federal government can’t continue to borrow 10% of gross domestic product every year.

But is there any reason to believe that the correct level of debt is zero?

Families don’t balance their budgets. Companies don’t balance their budgets. And even state and local governments don’t balance their budgets (they are able to borrow for capital expenses, even if they are required to keep the operational budget balanced).

And the federal government shouldn’t balance its budget. At least, balancing shouldn’t be a major goal of policy makers.

Debt — responsible debt — is the best way to invest in the future.

Moralizing the debt

Promising to balance the federal budget is like putting on a hair shirt. It makes you feel close to God, but it’s needlessly painful in every other way. Instead of thinking about debt as an economic or financial problem, we’re thinking about debt as a moral question. And when we think of debt in moralistic terms, we begin to think a zero-tolerance policy is ideal.

That’s a dangerous idea.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/balancing-the-budget-is-a-foolish-goal-2013-03-13

This CPAC gathering is the best comedy show I've seen in a long time. It seem like the Republican party operates on the idea that since they didn't get our asses kicked ban enough last time around, then now need to get all of their losers on stage and remind the public why they didn't vote for Republican. It's almost like they didn't drive out enough voters last November so meet again to drive out even more.

I'm always amazed that the fiscal conservatives want to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending....all without raising revenues on the other side of the ledger....and what's the very first thing they want to cut? Safety net programs (they like to use the word "entitlements"). After all, that, apparently, is what most of our tax dollars are being wast.....er....I mean spent on. However, they never want to take an honest look at what would result if we went to a Paul Ryan-style or more of an austerity-friendly way to take care of those who can't....yes, I said can't...take care of themselves in today's America. These are people with no job future, with health problems, they're aged. The righties will say to those able-bodied unemployed people "get training, get schooling, get off your ass and do what you have to to impress us that you can do the job we want you to do"....maybe, just maybe, you will bump your chances of getting a well-paying job up from 0% to maybe 25%. There's no thought about how these folks are supposed to get the loans to pay for the training or the schooling. And, if they do manage to get a loan, they get the training or that magical piece of paper that says they graduated college (which means nothing these days)....now what? They send in their resumes, they maybe get one bite in a hundred, which doesn't pan out. Day in, day out....and the student loan debt is just another huge weight on their shoulders. And, don't forget, there's no gov't assistance anymore...the righties stopped that, remember?

I think, maybe, the righties have given some thought as to what would happen. That's why all the fuss about their gun ownership rights.....they say they fear the government, when deep down, they fear their fellow Americans more. Because, desperate people do desperate things to survive. And, the righties want the right to defend themselves in case the worst case scenario does happen.

This can all be handled in a fiscally-responsible manner if only the business owners would understand that if you share the profits (record profits, mind you) with your existing workforce (that's your American workforce, not your outsourced workers), consumer spending would increase, creating demand for goods and services, creating the need for more jobs....and our unemployment rate plummets, and the tax revenues increase just because there are more workers in the workforce. Everybody wins!

But, and this is a HUGE but...the business owners do NOT want to take this, however miniscule, risk of profit loss. They would rather the risk go to the general public. They don't care that the risk is far greater for people who haven't the means to take such a risk. And, whether they realize it or not, these people are STILL part of our society, a very integral part that deserve a hand up, or ultimately, a hand out.

It's all in the hands of those with the money....you want smaller gov't spending on safety net programs....do something about putting these folks to work YOURSELF!

Right-wing media have seized on a 2008 video of then-candidate Barack Obama, in which he criticized President Bush for adding $4 trillion to the debt, to accuse Obama of hypocrisy because $4 trillion in debt has also accumulated since Obama took office. However, this ignores the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected $1.2 trillion in deficit before Obama took office -- based entirely on Bush's actions and economic conditions -- and that wars, policies, and the economic downturn that all began under Bush continue to inflate the debt.

Roy Wilson,

Yes, medicare was set up for the "safety net" most middle and low income people need to survive in old age, but inflation is one of the main reasons for the necessity of the safety net of Medicare because the highest cost of living we face is when we are the oldest and weakest, and that has been the rule for over 200 years.

Current wages are more than 5 times higher than 35 years ago. Housing is more than 10-15 times greater in cost in many places than back in the 1960s and 5-10 times greater than back in the early 1980s. The price of a car is many times higher, and transportation and gasoline prices are many times higher. Even groceries are several times higher than 3-4 decades ago. But healthcare has probably inflated more than anything in the last 3-4 decades, much more than average wages.

You are sooo incorrect. Medicare was originally set up for the current younger, able and working generations pay for the older current generations. The first medicare recipients paid into Medicare for less than 5 years, and were funded by the younger working people. Medicare was set up on a system with the younger working generations payroll taxes funding the retired.