quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Two different government accounting groups disagree with you.

Who are you referring to here?

Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office.

The Commissioner and the Actuary were both appointed by Bush. CBO is another story, but I would not count on them for know much at all.

GAO is also making the same prediction. The thing you are missing is the study that came to these conclussions was conducted in 1996. Depending on which source you use the red for SS will begin in either 2017 or 2019.. Trust fund supposedly will take us through early 2040s.. Assuming of course they can actually make good on those..

Oh and the six member SSA board of trustees are all appointed by the president.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

Here is something from the GAO on Medicare.

quote:

The challenge posed by the growth in Social Security spending becomes even more significant in combination with the more rapid expected growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending. Medicare presents a much greater, more complex, and more urgent fiscal challenge than does Social Security. Medicare growth rates reflect not only a burgeoning beneficiary population but also the escalation of health care costs at rates well exceeding general rates of inflation. For example, increases in the number and quality of health care services have been fueled by the explosive growth of medical technology. This growth in spending on federal entitlements for retirees will become increasingly unsustainable over the long term. The increasing fiscal pressure will reduce budgetary flexibility further. Over the past few decades, spending on mandatory programs—entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare—has consumed an increasing share of the federal budget. In 1964, prior to the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, spending for mandatory programs plus net interest accounted for about 33 percent of total federal spending. By 2004, this share had almost doubled to approximately 61 percent of the budget.

SRC

Although this document is 2005..

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:


Ok now we're getting some where. But you seem to be missing my point. We've heard the surge in Iraq is pointless unless we can get some sort of political movement from the Iraqi leadership. How is that any different in Afghanistan?

It is different and it isn't.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. The political realities are greatly different and, in addition, they have a long history as a co-hesive nation. In short, they already know how to get along and have long ago established the parameters of getting along among themselves.

Next, the mission of our troops is different. In Iraq during the surge, they are tasked with establishing, and maintaining, domestic security in towns, villages and neighborhoods. That should have been done at the outset, but it wasn't, so they are now playing "catch up" and, because of that, there isn't enough manpower to secure the borders with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, that hasn't been an issue because the Kabul government pretty much controls that city and the war lords control the security in the hinterlands. That leaves our troops with the mission of supporting them and patrolling the borders to prevent the inflow of Taliban and Al Queda fighters and supplies.

Sadly, because of the manpower requirements in Iraq, we don't have enough troops to do it effectively, even with the help of NATO. Were even half of the 140,000 in Iraq available for use in A'Stan, we could do a much, much better job of keeping them out.

Of course, it can never be stopped completely until their safe havens in Pakistan and the mullahs in Tehran are dealt with. That's the end game as far A'Stan is concerned and we can't even attempt anything along those lines as long as we are in Iraq. Tehran knows it and Al Queda knows it. That's why they are so heavily involved in Iraq.....to keep us there.

quote:

Is it? For how long and to what end?

How long in years? It's hard to say as there are too many variables to even suggest an estimate.

But the end is the establishment of order in most of the country, which is happening, and the elimination of the safe havens in Pakistan and the end of the mullahs in Tehran.

With enough manpower, and enough commitment, we can influence the new Pakistani government to get serious about the Waziristans (or we can do it ourselves) and get ready for taking out the she-devil of jihadism...Iran.

Even the current administration knows that Iran is the key to the whole problem. What's hurting us is that they have allowed Tehran to tie us down in Iraq, yet have not given up on the thought of broading the war by attacking Iran. To do so now, when we're stretched beyond reason, is foolishness but I'm afraid they'll do it anyhow before the new President takes office.

quote:

Seems to me if you are counting numbers we have more allies in Iraq. Yes NATO is participating in Afghanistan. Yes the UN is participating in Afghanistan. But their numbers are far smaller than the coalition of the willing in Iraq. And the sheer number of Afghan military is tiny in comparison to the Iraqi army.

The number of other nations, or even the number of troops, isn't as significant as their combat power. While some of our NATO partners aren't doing all they could, it would be a far stretch to presume that Polish troops can be as effective as French, German or Australian troops.

quote:

And your argument also neglects the very real resources that will be needed from the UN to handle the very real possibility of regional instability our withdrawl from Iraq will create.

Yes, there will be instability in Iraq (that's already happening with us there), but the regional instability will, I think, be contained by the greater threat we can present to Iran by the presence of a unified NATO, UN and greatly increased US presence in A'Stan.

See, I'm of the opinion that Iran is the fundamental enemy in this war and if we can threaten them enough to worry them, they'll have to draw in their support of jihadism, anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli and anti-Westernism around the region and around the world.

So long as we remain tied up in Iraq, they have nothing to fear. A shift in our forces from Iraq to A'Stan, in league with our allies (essentially the whole world) presents them with a far greater threat because we will have a greater freedom of movement than we do in Iraq.

quote:

We'll I definately agree with this to a certain degree. My main argument against it is this. At present there are no other wars to be fought unless you mean Iran or Pakistan. But we are most definately in a war! So how does keeping your troops from the very REAL WAR in order to fight a potential war that has not yet occured help?

That would be like McAurther saying we should hold off invading Japan because we want to hold our troops in reserve just in case those pesky Koreans jump loud??

It's quite a bit different because Mac and Ike didn't have to worry about Germany or Japan opening an entirely new front in the war. They were already totally committed and couldn't do much more.

That's not so in this war. Our enemies have barely scratched the surface of what they're able to do and, since they hold the initiative, they can open a new front anywhere from Lebanon to South America. We'd better be ready, AND ABLE, to respond.

Right now, we're not.

quote:

Im not a military expert by any means. But it seems to me that focusing on winning the current wars as fast as possible would be a higher priority then letting them drag on so we might have the resources to fight an imaginary future opponent.

I won't disagree with that at all and, in fact, it's one the chief complaints I have with the way the Bush administration has decided to fight the war. There is NO sense of urgency! They have deliberately embarked us upon a course which will take decades, or generations, to complete and that's the path to defeat.

Please don't take my comments out of context. I am very interested in having this debate and a site filled with Military/Ex Government people seems the appropriate place to have such a discussion.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by OldUSAFSniper:
Dang them capitalists, huh?? They build the most wealthiest, healthiest economic engine that the world has ever seen,

Yes, and then they moved it all overseas in the quest for higher profits, bankrupting our ability to even defend ourselves without involving foriegn governments, some of which are NOT our friends.

That's what happens when capitalism is unrestrained.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

That is making assumptions that you probably know little about. SS will be just fine with a little tweaking and if the economic assumptions are incorrect (which I believe are set artificially low for fairly obvious reasons). Medicare is in jeopardy because of the out of control medical system we have and will require some heavy rethinking.

I think your living in fantasy land. Social Security was already tweaked once back in 83. They nearly doubled the amount we all pay in in an attempt to prolong its life. Now, 2 1/2 decades later, we sit in the same position we did then trying to tweak it. And how long will your tweaks last this time? How long before we have to tweak it once again? And at what point do we put so much in and get so little out that it becomes pointless? Or are oyu in favor of pushing it more toward the socialist side of things and take from the rich so that the poor might be given?

SS can be made perfectly solvent simply by raising the SS tax income cap by a few thousand dollars.

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by OldUSAFSniper:
Dang them capitalists, huh?? They build the most wealthiest, healthiest economic engine that the world has ever seen,

Yes, and then they moved it all overseas in the quest for higher profits, bankrupting our ability to even defend ourselves without involving foriegn governments, some of which are NOT our friends.

That's what happens when capitalism is unrestrained.

Seems to me thats what happens when capitalism is encouraged by government.

Just like the welflare mom who survived on the system so to do many of corporations. But unlike the welfare mom they have the means to help elect our leadership and they have the ability to continue to influence them via lobbying. They, in cohoots with the various elected officials, rig the system to empower them all and ensure re-election.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

That is making assumptions that you probably know little about. SS will be just fine with a little tweaking and if the economic assumptions are incorrect (which I believe are set artificially low for fairly obvious reasons). Medicare is in jeopardy because of the out of control medical system we have and will require some heavy rethinking.

I think your living in fantasy land. Social Security was already tweaked once back in 83. They nearly doubled the amount we all pay in in an attempt to prolong its life. Now, 2 1/2 decades later, we sit in the same position we did then trying to tweak it. And how long will your tweaks last this time? How long before we have to tweak it once again? And at what point do we put so much in and get so little out that it becomes pointless? Or are oyu in favor of pushing it more toward the socialist side of things and take from the rich so that the poor might be given?

SS can be made perfectly solvent simply by raising the SS tax income cap by a few thousand dollars.

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

You know I would probably agree with you but I have two issues.

1) Those trust funds? Where is the money? Ohh thats right its been spent. So how are they gonna make good on it? By cutting other programs, increasing taxes even further, or by barrowing more money? Whos loaning?

2) We heard the same thing back in 83. Just raise taxes to create this surplus and everything will be dandy.. opps that didn't work.. Can we sell it to them a second time?

3) While the Baby Boomers certainly represent the biggest challenge it is the decreasing birth rate in this country that will continue to be a concern well past the baby boomers. If the life expectancy rate also contiinues to grow then it will be an ongoing issue.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:


Seems to me thats what happens when capitalism is encouraged by government.

Just like the welflare mom who survived on the system so to do many of corporations. But unlike the welfare mom they have the means to help elect our leadership and they have the ability to continue to influence them via lobbying. They, in cohoots with the various elected officials, rig the system to empower them all and ensure re-election.

No question about that.

Our government has fallen under the control of multi-national corporations and they do pretty much as they please. Worse, "we" negotiate free-trade agreements, in OUR name, which further empower corporations without so much as a by your leave to The People or our Constitution and those agreements undermine our democracy.

Wanna break that hold they have on us? Don't vote for either Hillary or McCain because they're both firmly in the hip-pockets of the global corporate crowd.

AND...toss out any incumbent in Congress, from either party.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:


Seems to me thats what happens when capitalism is encouraged by government.

Just like the welflare mom who survived on the system so to do many of corporations. But unlike the welfare mom they have the means to help elect our leadership and they have the ability to continue to influence them via lobbying. They, in cohoots with the various elected officials, rig the system to empower them all and ensure re-election.

No question about that.

Our government has fallen under the control of multi-national corporations and they do pretty much as they please. Worse, "we" negotiate free-trade agreements, in OUR name, which further empower corporations without so much as a by your leave to The People or our Constitution and those agreements undermine our democracy.

Wanna break that hold they have on us? Don't vote for either Hillary or McCain because they're both firmly in the hip-pockets of the global corporate crowd.

AND...toss out any incumbent in Congress, from either party.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:


Seems to me thats what happens when capitalism is encouraged by government.

Just like the welflare mom who survived on the system so to do many of corporations. But unlike the welfare mom they have the means to help elect our leadership and they have the ability to continue to influence them via lobbying. They, in cohoots with the various elected officials, rig the system to empower them all and ensure re-election.

No question about that.

Our government has fallen under the control of multi-national corporations and they do pretty much as they please. Worse, "we" negotiate free-trade agreements, in OUR name, which further empower corporations without so much as a by your leave to The People or our Constitution and those agreements undermine our democracy.

Wanna break that hold they have on us? Don't vote for either Hillary or McCain because they're both firmly in the hip-pockets of the global corporate crowd.

AND...toss out any incumbent in Congress, from either party.

No! No! Not Change!

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:


You know I would probably agree with you but I have two issues.

1) Those trust funds? Where is the money? Ohh thats right its been spent. So how are they gonna make good on it? By cutting other programs, increasing taxes even further, or by barrowing more money? Whos loaning?

We are loaning. It's always us!

But, what does it matter if we borrow enough to repay the trust fund? We'll be borrowing more than that anyhow because a fiat currency like ours has NO value until it's loaned out.

quote:

2) We heard the same thing back in 83. Just raise taxes to create this surplus and everything will be dandy.. opps that didn't work.. Can we sell it to them a second time?

It didn't work last time because the raise in SS taxes was to pay for the retirement of the WWII generation, not the baby boomers.

And, yes, I think it could be easily sold because it won't affect most of us, who are already paying SS taxes on all our income because we make below the threshold.

quote:

3) While the Baby Boomers certainly represent the biggest challenge it is the decreasing birth rate in this country that will continue to be a concern well past the baby boomers. If the life expectancy rate also contiinues to grow then it will be an ongoing issue.

Our declining birthrate is being more than matched by our growing immigrant population, most of whom pay taxes.

Did you know, for instance, that the so-called Generation Y, or Millenial Generation (those born between roughly 1980 and 2003) is LARGER in sheer numbers than the baby boomers? And that they are 40% non-white and 1 of 5 have at least one foreign born parent? Most of them work and pay the maximum amount into SS and they will be perfectly capable of funding the baby boomers retirement.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:


We are loaning. It's always us!

Actually we do loan it but a good deal of it is also loaned by foriegn investors. Anyone, who buys US Treasury Bonds.

quote:

It didn't work last time because the raise in SS taxes was to pay for the retirement of the WWII generation, not the baby boomers.

Thats not true is it? Every reference I have ever read about the Trust Fund explicitly states the Baby Boomer generation.

Never mind its not true. I went back and read the law. It is explicitly for the Baby Boomers not the WWII generation..

quote:

And, yes, I think it could be easily sold because it won't affect most of us, who are already paying SS taxes on all our income because we make below the threshold.

So your assuming we are only talking about raising the max threshold? So SS becomes even less of a payer system or we going to be paying out more to those who pay in more?

quote:

Our declining birthrate is being more than matched by our growing immigrant population, most of whom pay taxes.

Did you know, for instance, that the so-called Generation Y, or Millenial Generation (those born between roughly 1980 and 2003) is LARGER in sheer numbers than the baby boomers? And that they are 40% non-white and 1 of 5 have at least one foreign born parent? Most of them work and pay the maximum amount into SS and they will be perfectly capable of funding the baby boomers retirement.

Hummm if that was the case why is it that three different government agencies aren't seeing that? In fact why would need to raise taxes at all if this was the case? Do you have a reference on this?

quote:

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

Thirty years??? My wife was born in 64, she will live longer than thirty. There is also a lot of talk that indicates boomers will work longer than previous generations did....That is not reflected in any predictions that I have seen.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

There is also a lot of talk that indicates boomers will work longer than previous generations did....That is not reflected in any predictions that I have seen.

Keep telling yourself that. I bet if you stick your head in the sand we wont see you????

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

Afghanistan is not Iraq. The political realities are greatly different and, in addition, they have a long history as a co-hesive nation. In short, they already know how to get along and have long ago established the parameters of getting along among themselves.

Really? I didn't know that. I always assumed that the huge number of ethnic groups, tribes, and warlordism would make a centralized democratic nation more difficult. If all of this was true why is it that the government is having such a hard time ruling over anything outside Kabul?

Doesn't having the warlords governing in the territories kinda defeat the point of a centralized government?

quote:

Were even half of the 140,000 in Iraq available for use in A'Stan, we could do a much, much better job of keeping them out.

Really? Even with the vastly more difficult terrain?

quote:

Of course, it can never be stopped completely until their safe havens in Pakistan and the mullahs in Tehran are dealt with. That's the end game as far A'Stan is concerned and we can't even attempt anything along those lines as long as we are in Iraq. Tehran knows it and Al Queda knows it. That's why they are so heavily involved in Iraq.....to keep us there.

Humm so we need to do something with Iran? I'd have thought having the geography of Iraq would actually make that easier? Or are you suggesting something a bit less overt? Even then I would assume infiltrating Iran from the sea and over the mountains in north western Iran would be easier. Although I have no idea what their air defense is like. For all I know you could fly right in all over the place.

But if its air strikes etc, I'd have thought having bases in Iraq to launch them from would help reduce our dependance on carriers and such in the gulf and spread our assets out to protect them from a ballistic missile response?

quote:

With enough manpower, and enough commitment, we can influence the new Pakistani government to get serious about the Waziristans (or we can do it ourselves) and get ready for taking out the she-devil of jihadism...Iran.

I would think that the more manpower we had in Afghanistan the more dependant we would be on Pakistan. Aren't they the principal means by which we supply those troops? Aka flying over/shipping through their territory? All they have to do is deny us the use of their sea ports and air space and we'd be screwed.

quote:

The number of other nations, or even the number of troops, isn't as significant as their combat power. While some of our NATO partners aren't doing all they could, it would be a far stretch to presume that Polish troops can be as effective as French, German or Australian troops.

Ok I would not have known that. Do you mean based on resources like logistics for example or based on skill sets?

quote:

Yes, there will be instability in Iraq (that's already happening with us there), but the regional instability will, I think, be contained by the greater threat we can present to Iran by the presence of a unified NATO, UN and greatly increased US presence in A'Stan.

I think this is the most rose colored glasses I have seen since 03.. Between secretarian strife, Al Quida, Iran, Ex-Bath Party, Turkey and the Kurdish rebels. I have a feeling that if we pull out things will get quite bad for a great number and probably spreading to a number of near by countries.

However, I believe one of those countries will likely be Iran. So maybe we can bog them down in it.

quote:

See, I'm of the opinion that Iran is the fundamental enemy in this war and if we can threaten them enough to worry them, they'll have to draw in their support of jihadism, anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli and anti-Westernism around the region and around the world.

I won't deny Iran is a major player that needs to be dealt with. I just don't think the best way to do that is to give them Iraq and by placing significant numbers of troops in Afghanistan where the logistics necessary to support them is vastly more complicated. If they don't respect our power in Iraq they certainly wont in Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

There is also a lot of talk that indicates boomers will work longer than previous generations did....That is not reflected in any predictions that I have seen.

Keep telling yourself that. I bet if you stick your head in the sand we wont see you????

Great debate skills.

Lots of material out there. Maybe you could try to read a little.

Merrill Lynch Reveals How Baby Boomers Will Transform Retirement

Lots more.... fficial&client=firefox-a" TARGET=_blank>boomers

Done here.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

And, that only has to work for about 30 years, until we baby-boomers die off. After that, there shouldn't be much of a problem for a long time.

There is also a lot of talk that indicates boomers will work longer than previous generations did....That is not reflected in any predictions that I have seen.

Keep telling yourself that. I bet if you stick your head in the sand we wont see you????

Great debate skills.

Lots of material out there. Maybe you could try to read a little.

Merrill Lynch Reveals How Baby Boomers Will Transform Retirement

Lots more.... fficial&client=firefox-a" TARGET=_blank>boomers

Done here.

Done here huhh.. Why don't you read a few more..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-08-boomers_N.htm

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/reports/adcouncil..._council_042295.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/politics/08trust.html...&partner=rssuserland

http://www.cbpp.org/6-28-05socsec2.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_022399.html

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-mt092496.html