Skip to comments.
Congressional memo to future generations: You're screwed
MSNBC ^
| December 10, 2004
| Joe Scarborough
Posted on 12/10/2004 9:42:59 AM PST by HostileTerritory
Take it from a not-so-old former congressman who knows: Proud young Americans, you are in for a con job from Washington that you can't even imagine.
Your government has already borrowed almost $8 trillion that it can't pay back. Guess who will have to write the check? That's right. You.
Expect massive tax hikes in your future, and wicked cuts in national defense, education, environmental enforcement, police protection and medical care for the poor and elderly.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: debt; scarborough; scarboroughcountry; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: tiamat
I think they were called "Fine Young Cannibals". The lead singer always reminded me of Colin Powell, but I don't think it was him.
To: HostileTerritory
Hey Joe! I really do hate to be the one to tell you this but a Ponzi scheme is still a Ponzi scheme even if the government runs it and like ALL Ponzi schemes it will eventually collapse of it's own weight despite all efforts to prop it up!
22
posted on
12/10/2004 10:07:55 AM PST
by
Bigun
(IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
To: jmc813; qam1; ItsOurTimeNow; PresbyRev; tortoise; Fraulein; StoneColdGOP; Clemenza; malakhi; ...
Xer Ping Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
23
posted on
12/10/2004 10:08:57 AM PST
by
qam1
(Anyone who was born in New Jersey should not be allowed to drive at night or on hills.)
To: HostileTerritory
The thing that amazes me is that these congress critters are not afraid for their lives.
I have visions of the peasants with pitcforks and torches coming to take revenge on these elites at some point in the future.
24
posted on
12/10/2004 10:10:03 AM PST
by
Pylot
To: HostileTerritory
Is Joe still on pain meds for his back?
That's $8 trillion in an $11 trillion economy! Unlike mere mortals, the US government can't run out of money since it can always print more.
Even if it doesn't want to print it's way to solvency, it can always sell off some of the more useless of it's vast portfolio of assets, like the Strategic Helium Reserve or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
Didn't Proud Young Americans sing "She Drives Me Crazy"? No, that was Fertile Young Conservatives.
26
posted on
12/10/2004 10:18:06 AM PST
by
reformed_democrat
(Just a red-state woman trapped in a blue-state nightmare.)
To: Phantom Lord
It's easy to make money with a private retirement system, as long as it isn't burdened with the cost of supporting current retirees. That these people were allowed to "opt out," permitted them to foist a disproportionate burden on everybody else.
27
posted on
12/10/2004 10:18:35 AM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are really stupid.)
To: Carry_Okie
Which will be the case with private SS accounts once the transition period is passed.
28
posted on
12/10/2004 10:22:15 AM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: HostileTerritory
Congressional memo to future generations: You're screwed
Memo from future generations to Congress: You can't sqeeze water from a rock. You cannot collect taxes from someone you have already bankrupted to point of having nothing.
To: HostileTerritory
Think of either massive inflation or a fiat money solution in the future. The future will be within 20 years. So, for your own good, borrow as much as possible and buy real estate. Keep no cash. Cash will be worthless in the future. The only cash that will have value is that which is earned on the day it is spent. Cash investments will be watered down to nothing. If one has cash investments, because of the US government's need for cash, it is likely that much of it is invested in notes tied to the Treasury. Because of this, and the inability to pay the notes back with real worth, the cash investments will be rendered nearly worthless over time. I expect inflation to soar in about three years.
To: HostileTerritory
Wasn't one of the reasons for the most recent tax cut that it's our money and we, not the government, should spend it?
If so, why isn't anyone proposing an amendment to the SS plan that would give us the option of opting out of the system entirely? Why should government tell me how to plan for my future?
Also, wouldn't brokerage houses and investment firms stand to make a mint from this plan? Are we really satisfied that this plan was conceived without the 'help' of the Wall St. lobby?
31
posted on
12/10/2004 10:29:43 AM PST
by
mr.maine-iac
(... there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. - Mark Twain)
To: Phantom Lord
Which will be the case with private SS accounts once the transition period is passed. Obviously. What I would like to see is some effort to reduce the pain of the transition. To that end, I have a couple of ideas.
Little is being said of changing the retirement age. As it is, young people with families and a serious need for capital and major expenses for day care are being asked to fund retirees sitting in near empty houses. We also have the problem that our culture is not being transferred to children. Why not fix that injustice?
Raise the retirement age, but simultaneously offer to those who wish to retire at 65 that they can do daycare, help in schools, or perform some other service that reduces the burden on young wage earners. Otherwise that lump up front will be a hard sell.
32
posted on
12/10/2004 10:34:03 AM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are really stupid.)
To: Zacs Mom
Two interesting aspects of the income tax are this: When the constitutional amendment was under consideration to establish the income tax, the Republicans in Congress made two bad assumptions.
One was that the states would never approve that amendment. The other was the decision not to put an absolute cap on the income tax of 10%. The flawed thinking was that if the amendment set such a cap, future Congresses might be more inclined to raise the tax to that exorbitant level.
Boy howdy, were the Republicans dead wrong on both assumptions.
Congressman Billybob
Click for latest, "Should the Iraqi Election be Delayed?"
To: HostileTerritory
Just because it's Scarborough doesn't mean this didn't require a Barf Alert. :)
34
posted on
12/10/2004 10:39:41 AM PST
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
To: HostileTerritory
Yea, it
seems like alot of money. It really isn't when you compare it to the vastness of space of some other completely unrelated metaphor.
Here's what we do: When the postman delivers the bill, we just throw it away. I mean, do you really thinks someone is going to repossess us?
When "the man" calls I say we give him the finger as hard as we can over the phone, and then laugh maniacally as we slam the receiver down.
Yea, that's what we should do.
I don't have it and they cant get it.
Have a good Friday y'all.
35
posted on
12/10/2004 10:40:17 AM PST
by
four more in O 4
(God Bless America, and Merry CHRIST-mas to ALL!)
To: Phantom Lord
"Some Americans Already Have Privatized Social Security"
You are correct. They are called IRA, 401k, etc. In the past most of us allowed payroll deductions from our net income to fund. I took advantage of this during my working days, and now I am drawing a monthly check which is larger than the check I received while working. Privatizing accounts is a way to look out for yourself, which many people want government to do for them. Sorry, but SS is a way to starve.
36
posted on
12/10/2004 10:43:55 AM PST
by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: Final Authority
Yes, I have a fixed-rate mortgage on my home, which puts me on the right side of inflation or interest-rate hikes if and then that comes to pass. I expect something to give sooner or later and borrowing huge amounts of money right now is going to speed the process. It just seems like a bad idea.
To: HostileTerritory
Joe Scarborough = one time conservative, now ron reagan's friend who MUST lean left to keep his job on PMSNBC or whichever alphabet channel is works for.
38
posted on
12/10/2004 10:49:17 AM PST
by
zip
(Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough became truth to 48% of Americans)
To: HostileTerritory
If you do borrow to buy a fixed asset like gold or property and get to pay it off with depreciated (cheap) money in the future, the rate of return is not only what you can make with the asset but also the differential in the value of the payment. The greatest generation made out well with this. The families that started out right after WWII bought property and cars and furniture with borrowed money at low interest rates and then there was massive inflation starting in the late '50s. Banks by the early '70s were eager to have mortgages paid off so much so that they offered rebates or cash incentives to get out of the low interest deals they made. It will happen again.
To: Logical me
Did you read the article I linked?
40
posted on
12/10/2004 10:58:52 AM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson