Posted on 07/01/2014 7:30:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It has been clear for at least a year that the focus of the nation on reducing the federal debt has vanished. The speeches of policymakers, the House and Senate legislative agendas, the content of the nation's debate forums, and the rhetoric of President Obama are all virtually silent on the nation's debt.
You would think that the debt problem had been solved. But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the intense, three-year focus on the debt that featured bitter inter-party battles and closing of the federal government while producing several laws that reduced the nation's debt in the short-term, was that almost nothing was achieved that will reduce the long-term debt. At most, the rate at which debt is accumulating was somewhat reduced and the moment of reckoning postponed for a few years.
One thing the struggle did produce was a broad understanding that the two major causes of the long-term debt are the growth of federal health care programs - especially Medicare - and interest on the federal debt.
Between 2010 and 2035, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, federal medical expenditures will increase by 85 percent to10 percent of GDP or about $2.75 trillion. Meanwhile, primarily because of the growth of health programs, the nation will be forced to borrow huge sums of money, thereby greatly increasing net interest payments on the federal debt. At some point, as the history of excessive borrowing by many nations shows, there will be a crisis.
An important tactical error made by those in the vanguard of the fight against federal debt when they had the nation's attention was to rely primarily on warnings of impending doom as a justification for reducing the debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...
As I mentioned, a collapse could bring something far worse in terms of a government and the loss of our liberties. A financial collapse could lead to civil strife and violence.
Another subject: We have two Yorkies.
You are correct.. However, not many people start their working life making SS’s max income. So those higher earning years replacing the lower years has some benefit.
Every case will be different. But once one has reached the point where your AIME is above the 2nd bend point, only 15% of earnings count. But you still get to pay in the full amount.
Socialism.
Best to quit paying into Big Brother at that point, IMO, if one can.
“A financial collapse could lead to civil strife and violence.”
It will, no doubt. It’s the final outcome that is in question. But it would be no worse than where we are now headed.
“We will just agree to disagree. When children are sent thru the public school brainwashing system along with a complementary mainstream media and entertainment industry, it shouldn’t be surprising what the result will be. Add to that the disintegration of the family and you wind up with a very liberal product.”
I did not disagree with that statement. Only that I think they are still responsible for their own actions, irregardless. Those in school in the USSR could still discern truth now and then.
With your point of view, the outcome is set. You have lots of great data, but don’t pull any conclusions from it. Other than the same hopeless inevitability that Winston had in 1984. I really don’t know what your point is since it seems to be a moving target. Just arguing isn’t enjoyable for me.
But, yorkies are the best!
I didn't know about AIME or bend points. Thanks for educating me.
A quick google leads to this blog post by Mary Beth Franklin.
Continuing with the status quo is a losing proposition. I thought I made it quite clear (post # 7 and #29) that we need to reform the entitlement programs, which are unsustainable and the biggest driver of our debt. We also need to reduce immigration, legal and illegal, to a trickle. In terms of conservatives winning elections, we should follow Jeff Sessions' advice:
Becoming the Party of Work -- How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself.
“For higher earners, additional years of work late in a career might not matter that much. Even if later, higher-earning years replace earlier, lower-earning years, it is likely to affect only the final bend point that includes just 15% of average monthly earnings that exceed $4,917 in the benefit calculation.”
In my hubby’s case, he’d only get about $30 more a month if he works 17 more years. And would pay in close to $200,000.
Not worth working longer for SS (but would be for his 401k). Unless Big Brother confiscates that some day.
It’s nice to see a realistic article about SS, thx. Few realize how socialized it is.
bump
Yes, you did say that.
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.