Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

A look at future?

February 10, 2013

We cannot fully look into the future, but if we continue down the path that the Obama administration is presently on and has been on for the last four years, many foresee possible real chaos....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(41)

CMReeder

Feb-12-13 8:54 AM

In the meantime 'catty' Bobbie is munching on cheeeeese!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-11-13 5:59 PM

I rest my case..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-11-13 1:58 PM

It's 'another typical Democratic ticket'... you don't work for fox nor are you a republican politician, you are allowed to say it properly. Perhaps if you one day learn elementary school level syntax, then you'll be taken seriously..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-11-13 9:28 AM

Forbes Magazine did a report on the solvency of social security and they say it is solvent. It will not run out of money.

Credit Suisse reported on the top 20 expenditures of the US, social security payments was number 13 but there is another retirement expenditure that was costlier. It is the subsidies it pays for private retirement accounts. It is at number 2 on the list.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-10-13 10:29 PM

"This year's downgrade suggests that last year's 2033 collapse date will likely once again be revised closer -- to 2032 or perhaps even sooner."

You understand that the "collapse date" is only if nothings done right? The whole enchilada could be fixed by adjusting the income threshold, and raising SS tax by a tenth of a percent a year, for say 5-10 years.

And in reality, the fixes don't have to be permanent. The biggest problem Social Security has now, is there are a tidal wave of people called baby boomers hitting retirement now. That wave has a beginning, and an end, when the baby boomers meet the end that we'll all meet and are no longer in the system. The easiest way to picture the problem is a graph, with a large hump in the middle (the baby boomers). As that hump slides through time boomers will enter the system, then exit the system. Then the system will stabilize.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bryan48

Feb-10-13 9:26 PM

I stopped at NRA and common sense...

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-10-13 7:45 PM

Hello premier.. I feel compelled to point out that 'it has been said' is a rather vague statement, bereft of a source. In other words, for every story one reads arguing as you have, I could easily provide you one to the contrary. For example, a story published today by Fred Lundgren paints a very different picture regarding SS solvency, and the author backs it up with data from NASI and suggestions for the future provided by the CRS. In the likely event event you would agree about the sources credibility, then the answer lies within. That, coupled with that fact that stress is terrible for a body, whereas laughter has a positive impact on all cardio respiratory systems, means no, I don't choose to stress about it. Hillary\Warren in 2016, you heard it here first!

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-10-13 6:59 PM

It has been said that in 2012 SS added 165 billion to the deficit. Why?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-10-13 6:57 PM

Buff, enigma is correct. There is nothing in the trust fund. Are you worried now? It's all a numbers game and here is the clearest proof anyone can give. Remember the talk of SS checks not going out because of the debt ceiling talks? Well...

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-10-13 6:47 PM

I respectivly question your solution Buff. That's the side who put the lock box {with the lock removed of course} into the general fund and spent it. They have never offered any solutions.

This is not something that can be fixed in a couple of years leading up to the collaspe of SS. It must be done now.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-10-13 6:16 PM

Hi premier, given the fact that I stopped by the cbo web site this morning, it is fair to say I assumed the information was current. But, nontheless, if what you posted is accurate, then we have either 19 or 20 years rather than 25. Still sufficient time to act, unless enigmas comment is correct.. which it just might be. The continued solution remains.. Hillary/ Warren in 2016. H'azak!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-10-13 6:11 PM

Hi enigma, that might well be accurate, I haven't research the topic all that thoroughly. Working 45-50 hours per week plus the family requirements limits a mans free time. Not sure if I told you but, as of December, I have a new position, one in which I am pretty busy. I have less time to read/research than I once did. I put in a request for the book you reccomended but it hasn't shown up yet. Adios, mi amigo..

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-10-13 5:54 PM

Hey Buff, you might want to get up dated. this just out today.

The bad news from last year's CBO projection foretold the three-year shift forward in the projected collapse date of the combined Trust Fund in the 2012 Social Security Trustee's Report. This year's downgrade suggests that last year's 2033 collapse date will likely once again be revised closer -- to 2032 or perhaps even sooner.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 5:52 PM

@gavinf56

Once again we conclude in agreement. It's been my pleasure.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-10-13 5:33 PM

@ Jerry,

Can't disagree with you on the 109th. One of my biggest pet peeves is going to war without paying for it, and I stated it many times right here on these very boards. It makes no sense. Why should our men and women of the armed services be the only ones asked to sacrifice.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 5:23 PM

@JohnWilsonKlees

Jambroni indeed. That's mad sketch.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnWilsonKlees

Feb-10-13 5:15 PM

JerryfromRI-Ending Marijuana Prohibition? Prohibition would be news to me.I'm tokin' right now Jambroni.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 4:59 PM

@JohnWilsonKlees

Dude, what are you talking about? The Governor does not have a plan of destruction.

I have another question for you also. Do you support ending marijuana prohibition?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 4:53 PM

@gavinf56

No disagreement there, Obama has gotten a lot less spending than he asked for. My hats off to House Republicans for this accomplishment.

I suppose history will judge if/how this historic halt to federal spending growth has impacted the recovery.

And furthermore, why did Republicans wait so long to reign in government spending? Why not do so in the 109th Congress when the GOP had majorities in both houses of Congress and controlled the Executive?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnWilsonKlees

Feb-10-13 4:44 PM

-JerryfromRI Sorry mate, I meant to type Corbett not Obama.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 4:39 PM

@JohnWilsonKlees

I never got a copy of the "plan of destruction". Perhaps you could share with us the details.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnWilsonKlees

Feb-10-13 4:36 PM

-JerryfromRI Cogan Station is beautiful. I don't know how much longer it will remain so if Obama accomplishes his plan of destruction. The more I read man the more paranoid I’m becoming.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-10-13 4:31 PM

I am not talking about the stimulus spending, I am talking about the increased spending that was inserted into the 2009 budget by Congressional Democrats and signed by President Obama.

Yes, after the increased spending in the 2009 budget, President Obama's spending increases have been historically low. Now I am sure we will disagree as to who the low increases in spending are most attributable, President Obama or the austerity measures put forth by Congressional Republicans?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-10-13 4:16 PM

@gavinf56

OK, without getting hung up on the one time stimulus spending, would you otherwise concede that the rate federal spending increase has been low as compared to other modern Presidents?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-10-13 4:14 PM

Buff,"I just read on the cbo website that the combined OASIDI trust is solvent until 2038, which is 25 years from now."

This is government hocus pocus. They are including what he government owes the trust fund as being in the trust fund. The problem with this is that the government does not have any way to pay this debt. To put it another way, our govenment loaned our money to us and will expect us to pay it back to ourselves, but that will kill the economy that we need in order to do that. Social Security is as broke as the government, which is 16Trillion dollars in debt broke. All this to say, we have less than no time to fix the problem and every day it gets worse.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 41 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web