Big Dogs House

Tax Revenues Way Down

Aug 4, 2009 Political

Tax revenues are the lowest they have been since the Great Depression. In other words, the Obama recession and failed stimulus have resulted in a shortage of cash to the government in the form of tax receipts. Not that it matters much because they keep spending what we don’t have, but now we will be even further in debt.

The article from Yahoo news goes into great detail about the shortage and what it means. The two things that I want you to take away from it are contained in these quotes:

Social Security tax receipts are down less than a percentage point from last year, but in May the government had been projecting a slight increase. At the time, the government’s best estimate was that Social Security would start to pay out more money than it receives in taxes in 2016, and that the fund would be depleted in 2037 unless changes are enacted.

Some experts think the sour economy has made those numbers outdated.

“You could easily move that number up three or four years, then you’re talking about 2013, and that’s not very far off,” said Kent Smetters, associate professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania.

The government’s projections included best- and worst-case scenarios. Under the worst, Social Security would start to pay out more money than it received in taxes in 2013, and the fund would be depleted in 2029.

~snip~

Medicare tax receipts are also down less than a percentage point for the year, pretty close to government projections. Medicare started paying out more money than it received last year.

Social Security and Medicare are two government run programs and they are not in good shape. The worst case scenario is that SS will pay out more than it takes in by 2013 (2016 in the best case) and they claim the fund will be depleted some number of years later.

Here is a newsflash, the Social Security fund is already depleted. Each month the excess money taken in is turned over to the government in exchange for a government bond. Then Congress spends that money on other things. Instead of saving it, the government spends it. Since we don’t have any money just lying around, Social Security is broke. The government cannot afford to make good on the bonds because it spent all of the money. This is part of the 11 trillion in debt that is not reported when they discuss our financial obligations.

Keep this in mind as they talk about health care and “savings” because they will spend any excess money from any health care program as well. I believe that Social Security should be privatized and people can manage their own retirement and pass the money on to their heirs. However, the government runs the program so that is not currently an option. If I had been running this program the money would have been invested or saved so that it would be there when the bills come due. Congress does not think like that because most of them have no business sense.

These are the people who want to run your health care.

Speaking of which, Medicare is a government run health care program. It is now paying out more than it takes in. I am sure that government will soon raise the Medicare tax we all pay (including on those who make under 250k a year). That is assuming that Medicare is around for much longer. If the Democrats pass their health care plan then Medicare will go away and the elderly will be vulnerable.

When they started this program it was not supposed to cost this much money. They were supposed to collect the money and be responsible for making sure the program was solvent. Through years of fraud, waste and abuse, the program has gone broke. They were not able to run a health care program for a portion of the population (the elderly) but they want to run a health care system for the entire country.

If they cannot keep SS or Medicare solvent, what makes anyone think they can keep government run health care solvent? What do you suppose will happen once the health care program runs out of money?

They will ration care and the elderly are going to be on the wrong end of the stick. A 24 year old IV drug user with AIDS will get costly treatment while an active 70 year old will be getting counseled on end of life decisions.

It is troubling to see tax revenues down but the most troubling part of the story is the proof that government cannot run social programs efficiently. The story clearly demonstrates why we should not have government involved in something as complicated as our health care system.

The government cannot run a model train, SS and Medicare are a challenge they are failing to meet and if they run the entire health care system it will mean the collapse of this once great country.

The elderly will pay the biggest price.

Speak up senior citizens.

Tags: great depression, health care, social security, tax revenue

The Health Care Savings Two-fer

Jul 26, 2009 Political

Barack Obama and his Democrats keep saying that the health care they want to impose will reduce costs. This is a blatant lie because they will spend trillions of dollars to implement this restrictive mandate that will affect the lives of everyone. It was recently reported that a Democrat was overheard stating that they would save money through the hospice program. In other words, they will push the elderly to die off rather than receive treatment and save money that way.

There is a provision in the bill for the elderly to begin receiving counseling on end of life decisions beginning at age 65 and occurring every 5 years thereafter. The counseling will take place more frequently if the person is sickly.

This is a practice that has the potential for widespread abuse. The elderly (as a group) are more easily manipulated and might be directed toward end of life rather than treatment. It will be presented as a more humane and dignified way to exit the Earth but the goal will be to save money by allowing the elderly to die. I also see these counselors deceiving the elderly (particularly those with dementia) or making decisions for them in order to push them toward hospice and to save the government money. The entire scheme is frightening and should not take place in this country. End of life decisions should be made by the patient, family members, medical staff, and clergy (if people desire that intervention). Government should have no role in the process.

But this whole plan might be a way for government to make Social Security more solvent as well. We are entering the time when most people must wait until 67 years of age before they can draw Social Security (full benefits). If they can be convinced at 65 to enter hospice or if they can be pushed that way every 5 years (sooner if they are sickly) then the government can save millions of dollars in Social Security benefits because the money people pay in is lost upon their death. If Social Security were an individual plan then the money could be passed on but since the government extorts the money and redistributes it, it is not reserved for the person who paid it in. If one dies before collecting then an entire life worth of Social Security is paid to someone else.

The government can kill two birds (and many seniors) with one stone. By forcing seniors to be counseled on end of life decisions and hospice, the government can hasten the end of those who are the biggest drain on health care and the recipients of Social Security and save money for both programs.

When Social Security was set up the life expectancy was lower and many people died before collecting. Those who did collect did not live very long so they collected very little. Since people are living longer there are more people being paid Social Security. The government has tried to curb this by raising the retirement age but people are still living longer. Forcing them into hospice (or directing them that way) would reduce the amount of health care treatment they receive and would hasten their demise and save Social Security a ton of money.

This is a win-win for the government but not so much for the elderly who Dr. Obama thinks should just take a pill.

The Democrats have a plan but they will not be a part of it. Under Obamacare, Ted Kennedy would not have received medical care for his terminal condition but since members of Congress will be exempt, old politicians will receive all the care they want and their lives will be prolonged. They will not be subject to end of life counseling like the peons over whom they rule.

There are many provisions of the bill that are unacceptable. Dinocrat has a list of them and they are not good. Be sure to follow the link and read them. The page numbers are included so that you can refer to the bill, if you dare.

One item on the list is that each person will receive a national insurance ID card.

Where is the ACLU on this? Where are the libtards who protest national ID cards as an invasion of privacy?

They would appear to be AWOL on this issue. Then again, they never were about rights to begin with.

We must defeat this bill and we absolutely must vote out any member of Congress who votes for it. Let them know this over the August recess. We need to show them who the boss is.

Maybe if we are lucky states will follow the lead of Texas. What a great state…

Tags: health care, hospice, Obama, social security

You Can’t, Unless You Are The Government

Jul 16, 2009 Political

In February of this year, during a speech. Barack Obama admonished companies by exclaiming:

“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.”

This was a direct stab at the companies that had taken, or in many cases forced to take, bailout money. He wanted to make it clear that as long as the taxpayer was footing the bill there would be no trips to these kinds of places no matter what the reason.

Of course this idea did not stop Obama from attending a fundraiser for Harry Reid in, you guessed it, Las Vegas. And he did it on the taxpayer dime.

It would appear as if it is OK to take these kinds of trips if you are the government because now we have word that the Social Security Administration sent at least 675 employees to Phoenix Arizona for a conference at the Valley resort. The cost of the trip was $700,000. This is 700 thousand dollars spent by an organization that has been raped of all its money by the federal government and will be in the red by 2016. They spent close to three quarters of a million dollars on a conference with classes such as “Techniques to Empower You,” “Mentoring the Generations,” and “Emotional Intelligence.”

The article also states that the SSA did not mention the after hours activities though I am not sure any of them cost the taxpayer because I would assume they were not paid for with taxpayer money (though it would not surprise me if taxpayer money was used).

Considering how terrible Social Security is and how it only allows people to live at poverty level while it plummets toward insolvency, one has to wonder who thought this would be a good idea.

Social Security is a boondoggle to begin with and should be gradually moved over to the private sector where the money people pay in belongs to them and they can decide how to invest it. This would generate more wealth and allow people to retire in comfort (something Democrats oppose because self sufficient voters are harder to scare into voting Democrat). This incident just demonstrates the atmosphere in the SSA. Waste money, make poor decisions, and don’t worry about it. The taxpayer will foot the bill.

If accounts were private we would not need 675 managers to run things (not to mention the tens of thousands of employees) and they could not go to training conferences that cost a fortune. There would be no need for all these people who run a poor system that has a return of less than 1% on investment.

Maybe that was their share of the bailout money.

You can’t waste taxpayer money unless you are the government.

Gotcha.

ABC 15.com

Tags: boondoggle, insolvency, social security, taxpayer, trip, waste

Obama Vows To Tackle Social Security Spending

Jan 8, 2009 Political

Barack Obama says that he plans to get a handle on out of control spending in Social Security and Medicare. He claims that there is red ink as far as the eye can see. Well, Social Security is not bankrupt yet but it will be in the not too distant future. Social Security takes in more than it needs but the excess is used by the government to pay for other things. They just cannot keep their hands out of the till. When there is money, they spend it.

For the longest time Social Security has taken in much more than it pays out. Instead of being prudent and ensuring the excess money stayed dedicated to the program, Congress spent it. There are so many IOUs that they will never be paid back.

I do not like Social Security. It should have never been started but since the program is in place it should be privatized so people can invest as they see fit. I know there are people who say that the recent economic problems show why we should never do that but they are wrong. Long term, money invested in the market grows. There are periods of downturn but the periods of growth are much greater. There are government accounts that are long term and they are the ones that lose little or no value when the market is in a slump. These safer funds are what people would move too as they approach retirement. Growth takes longer but there is very minimal risk.

The stock market is much less risky than letting government handle your money. They have less than 1% return and they spend what is left. Also, if you die you don’t get to pass your Social Security on. A small survivor benefit is paid but most goes back into the pot and redistributed. If the account was yours, you could invest it how you wanted and you could pass it to your family when you died. Obama would not be seeing a sea of red ink if people had private accounts.

Bernie Madoff has been accused of running a Ponzi scheme. He took investors money with the promise fo large returns and then paid off investors with other investor’s money. He took money from one group and he paid it to another.

Social Security relies on the current worker population to pay benefits to current retirees. Workers pay it in and government sends it out. So, much like Madoff, the government is paying one group of investors with the money from another group of investors. It is the government’s own Ponzi scheme.

The huge difference is that Madoff will go to jail for bilking people out of their money with his Ponzi scheme but no one will pay for the untold amount of money that government has bilked the people out of.

Since government is involved in Social Security it is a legal Ponzi scheme. If an average person like say, Madoff, ever tried a thing like SS he would end up in jail and yet, politicians are not incarcerated.

Every president has stated he would fix Social Security and Obama is obliged to do that as well. The truth is, they cannot fix it because it is broken beyond repair.

We need private accounts and we need to control our own future. Unless Obama is planning on that, then he will fail in his efforts.

Tags: Obama, ponzi scheme, red ink, social security

What’s In Store For Your 401(k)?

Nov 6, 2008 Political

…Or as Congress would ask; What’s in your wallet?

Socials Security has been a disaster. The money that people put into it is pooled together and then redistributed. Regardless of how much one makes, there is a cap as to how much one can receive. One of the problems is, the money is not put into an account in your name. It is put in the general fund and Congress spends it. Then, every four years Congress cries about Socials Security going bankrupt. If a person dies then the money is not passed on to heirs. There are some benefits but basically the money goes to others who did not die. If a single person works for 40 years and dies before reaching retirement age then all his hard work pays for someone who outlived him.

The 401(k) retirement was set up so that people could save money for retirement. The money is theirs and they would be able to use it for retirement. Those who saved more would be able to retire a bit better off than those who did not save or saved very little. There is a tax benefit to contributing as the money is tax deferred and reduces taxable income.

This is not good for the Democrats because they are losing 80 billion dollars a year because of the tax break. There is now a plan to forcibly take your 401(k) money and put it in your Social Security “account” and then pay that out to you when you retire. This will allow the government to pool your money and redistribute it as it sees fit. If you were fortunate to put away a great deal of money you will retire with the same amount as someone who paid much less. The government will decide how you get to live your retirement years. Rush Limbaugh explained the plan, as it is right now. I heard the audio of the person he discusses and she said exactly what he reports.

She wants to basically eliminate the 401(k), and the way she wants to do it is she wants to go to people who have a 401(k), who have seen its asset value plummet because of the market plunge. So she wants to go back to August levels. Everybody that has a 401(k), we’ll take you back and we’ll give you money. We’ll restore the value. The government will. We’re just going to print some money here, and we’re going to restore your 401(k) to its August amount. Then we’re going to take it. We’re going to take your 401(k), and we will put it in your Social Security account that the government is monitoring for you, and we will invest every year 3% in government bonds. We’ll buy government bonds so that your 401(k) will grow at 3% every year adjusted for inflation. The most that you will be able to contribute to your 401(k) every year is 5% of what you earn.

Read the rest of the article and see how things will work. This is highly irregular and amounts to nothing more than theft. It is a socialistic policy designed to redistribute wealth and it should cause alarm for anyone who is saving for his future. The moochers out there probably can’t wait to get another piece of your earnings so they will like it but this is pure evil.

Keep a close eye on this. If they pass legislation to confiscate your money then I recommend you see a broker before they implement it so that you can close your account and put it somewhere where it will be protected from the thieves in DC. There is probably a penalty associated with early withdraw but I am willing to pay it to move my money to other investment vehicles so that I will have what I earned when I retire.

People should decide on their own investments and they should not have to worry about their government confiscating their money. This is what they do in Socialist countries and it keeps the masses in poverty while government elitists live like kings. Social Security should be abolished and people allowed to decide where their money is invested.

We get to decide how to save and how we want to retire. It is up to us to provide for ourselves and our families. It is our decision as to how much we want to have when we retire and our future should not depend on a government bean counter deciding how much we need to live.

I don’t know if Obama will buy off on this but given he is a Socialist and wants to spread the wealth, I have no doubt he will be more than happy to take your money and spread it around.

Our future should be based on our own sound decisions and not those of people who do not know what fiscal responsibility is. You know better what to do with your money than they do.

You can’t rob a bank to get money so why should they be allowed to rob you to improve their flow of cash?

Tags: 401k, confiscation, Congress, robbery, social security, taxes