Now where did I read

about Obama wanting to privatize Social Security?

by uluro (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 8:00:04 AM
 

Boomer impact

I am confused.  In 1945 the population od the U.S. was approximately 100 million.  Even if 25 million children were born between 1945- 1950, that is just a blip on our current population of 300 million.  Given the 300% growth in population, how could a blip of 25 million overwhelm the contributions of 300 million? 

by kato krause (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 8:29:18 AM
 

FEARMONGERER!!!

Ron Paul said, You can't drop people off a system they are dependent, but you can offer people who are not on that system choices; and that is what we need to talk about.

But because Ron Paul is GOP and GOP has been wanting to offer options for people, the fearmongering of, "You will lose your benefits" rages by the misleaders..that's fearmongering.

Now it must be Hillary's turn.. 

If SS benefits are something you want to keep, then you would support Ron Paul, end the war, claim tax deductions for healthcare, and get into a FREE market (where Tesla competes with Edison and FUEL crops for Ethanol, like Industrial hemp, Switchgrass, Algee and fungi are part of the solution...

 

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 8:36:47 AM
 

Well said!

I agree 100%. 

I think Hillary may have hinted that because she probably knows there won't be any money at all for SS in 30 or so years (right when I want to retire, nice). In fact, she'd be stupid not to know--the former Comptroller General David Walker had been shouting out at YouTube that if we don't reform the system, we won't have anything left to pay SS, let alone anything else. In 30 years, the gov't would take in just enough to pay the interest on our national debt.

I love Ron Paul's suggestion: let young people opt out of SS and handle their own retirement. And as someone who is self-employed, I'd *love* to opt out of that system--self employed people must pay double the tax--13% (the employee share--that's you, and the employer "contribution"). What sucks is that I know I'll never see a penny of that money. 

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 5:00:31 PM
 

Dooglio, You are a man of no faith

If Hillary gets in, you may be right. She has pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, but the way to keep SS solvant is to remove the cap and have people pay premiums all the way up.That will provide plenty of money in the system and probably leave some left over.

Allowing more people to opt out will reduce the overall pool of funds and will sink the system. As a recipiant of SS, I would hate to see that.

Leon

by Leon (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 17 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 11:07:01 PM
 

But what if I don't want SS?

Where is my choice? Why am I forced to pay for a system that is insolvent? I'd rather manage my own retirement. And nothing personal, but I don't want to have to pay for your retirement in addition to my own.

Our govt's spending is out of control, and we are living waaaaay beyond our means. One way to come close to at least meeting our obligations would be to end the war in Iraq, close down our foreign bases (and stop interfering militarily with other nations), then attack our domestic spending problems. But it is still important to let people opt out of the system, leaving more money available to take care of people like you who are dependent on the system.

The solution isn't raising taxes. The solution is curbing spending. And getting out of the mindset that the government is here to take care of us from cradle to grave.

So no, I am a man of great faith. I believe people can take care of themselves and their own retirements and everything else about their own lives very well without "help" from the federal government.

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM
 

Hillary neednt bother

Inflation is decreasing daily our benefits. With the COLA at 2 or 3% and food prices rocketing through the roof we are screwed already. Big oil already sodomized us all, but the fuel costs are really killing those of us on pensions. I like My medicare just fine, I think it is a good system, wasteful but it works. I do think she can ruin my healthcare.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 324 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM
 

And don't forget . . .

that the dollar has dropped 41% since Bush took office.  For every $100,000 you might have invested, saved, put into your home, etc., you've already lost $41,000 of it.  This was planned. 

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 3:55:35 PM
 

Amen

There is a war against the middle class being waged, and the insideous inflation tax is part of the scheme.

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 5:02:50 PM
 

She could, she might, he could, he might

All speculative and of course it lends an element of fear over the wellbeing of the only solvent program left in the government. Wall Street would like nothing better than to make social security their own personal piggy bank, just as they now engrasp the FED. We all know that as long as corporations have an ear to our politicians(which is always) social security will always be endangered. What we also know is every time they try it they are confronted by massive opposition. If the power elite wish to instill a rebellion, then cutting social security is a good way to start one. Some might argue their cuts in other social programs has already brought about a hate and distrust in government the likes of which hasn't been seen since McKinley, Taft or 1929.

The Wall Street Shills will continue to attempt it in the same way they always have, by going after the young, naive voter telling them as they pay more and more into it they will have less and less and by the time they retire it will be gone. Same old story since day one! The truth is all they need do is cut defense spending by 10% and make the rich pay taxes and there'd be nothing to worry about.

At a time when economic downturns have brought nearly 35 million Americans to their knees and millions more to the brink you would think a sure fire way to get elected would be to suggest an increase in social security benefits(and social benefits in general), not threaten to cut or even suggest they might cut them. I didn't hear any candidate say they would cut benefits or endanger them. but I've heard republicans threaten it and attempt to do it again and again and again. They've been doing so since its inception. The last vestige of the New Deal is all that stands in their way to creating a serf state, something the poorer half of our population will not stand for.

The baby boomers are the largest group of our voting population. To estrange them would be political suicide. Worse, it would be the dumbest decision ever made by politicians and the results would be catastrophic!

I see this as more fearmongering aimed at those who have sworn to protect social security while their republican counterparts always have and always will represent the biggest components to destroying it.

by Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 292 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM
 

Comment is hidden

What do bonds buy?

The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. 

 

There are two separate Social Security trust fund accounts: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.

 

Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.

 

HOWEVER, Social Security trust funds money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs held and, by law, invested in special U.S. Treasury bonds guaranteed by the U.S. Government. 

 

A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold (interest accrues each year and is paid at redemption) and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.

 

But what if there is nothing to redeem? If the bonds are worthless because the government is broke and is forced to pay for such costs as war and other "necessities" what then?

 

• SSA 2006 benefits +54 million people

• 16% of U.S. pop received 2005 SSA benefits

• 90% aged 65+ received 2005 SSA benefits

• SSA 2005 = 1/2+ income for 65% aged

• 4.6 million people = 2006  SSA benefits

• 56% of adult 2006 SSA recipients women

• Disabled-worker 2006 beneficiaries avg age = 52.1

• 83% of 2006 SSI due to disability/blindness 

 

Source: Social Security Administration http://www.ssa.gov

by Drew Terry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 86 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 2:37:33 PM
 

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC: Each year the Trustees of the Socia

A MESSAGE FROM THE PUBLIC TRUSTEES

 

These are the seventh annual Trustees Reports issued since our initial appointments as Public Trustees by President Clinton and subsequent reappointments by President Bush. They are also the last to be issued on our watch, since our second terms will end later this year. Our goal as Public Trustees has been to work in a nonpartisan way to ensure the integrity of the process by which the reports are prepared and the objectivity and credibility of the information they contain. We believe the role of the Public Trustees is important and urge the President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm, our successors as soon as possible, so that they can participate fully in the process leading up to next year’s reports. 

 

The projections in the reports are based on a number of underlying assumptions. While any projections are inherently uncertain, we believe the Trustees’ intermediate ones, which are the basis for our following discussion, provide the most reliable available picture of the financial outlook under current law for Social Security and Medicare. 

 

This outlook continues to be highly problematic. 

 

Social Security

This year’s OASDI report shows little deviation from last year’s in the intermediate projections for Social Security. 

 

There has been a slight improvement in the outlook for the combined trust funds throughout the 75-year projection period, due to the positive effects of updates in pro- gram data and minor changes in methods and assumptions that more than offset the negative consequences of extending the valuation period by one year. As a result, the date of trust fund exhaustion has moved from 2040 back to 2041, the actuarial deficit for the 75-year projection period has declined from 2.02 to 1.95 percent of taxable payroll, and the end-year (now 2081) annual deficit is lower (5.20 percent of taxable payroll for 2081, compared with last year’s 5.38 percent for 2080). 

 

Despite the improvement, the projected costs of scheduled benefits as a percentage of GDP remain the same as described in last year’s report, rising from a 2007 level of 4.3 to 6.2 in 2030 and to 6.3 in 2080. Again, the projected cost of scheduled future benefits is far greater than projected revenues. 

 

In consequence, Social Security poses a significant challenge to Federal government finances. 

 

The difference between the costs of currently scheduled benefits and tax revenues for the Social Security program over the 75-year projection period provides a summary measure of the magnitude of this challenge.

 

This difference is projected to total $6.8 trillion in present value, or about 1 percent of the present value of GDP over the same period. While current trust fund reserves provide the authority to cover the first $2.0 trillion of this funding shortfall before being depleted, Treasury must still come up with this amount in future cash as the special issue Treasury securities that make up trust fund reserves are redeemed. 

 

Because the deficits for Social Security continue to increase beyond the 75-year horizon, the magnitude of the fiscal problem over the very long run is much greater than the 75-year picture conveys. Thus, the fundamentals remain the same this year as for all the years of our tenure as Public Trustees. Current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures for the combined OASDI trust funds will soon begin to decline with the retirement of the baby-boom generation and, in 10 years, become rapidly growing deficits that must be covered with cash from the General Fund of the Treasury until trust fund reserves are exhausted a few decades later. At that time (2041), current law would no longer require Treasury to cover the annual trust fund deficits, and annual trust fund tax revenues would be sufficient to pay only 75 percent of currently scheduled Social Security benefits. 

 

Additional revenues initially equiva- lent to 13 percent of Federal income tax revenues (projected at their his- torical average share of GDP over the past four decades) and growing over time—would be necessary to fill this gap. As we have noted in our past two years’ Messages, demographic change is the major force shaping the financial outlook for Social Security, and only highly unlikely deviations in actual experience from the Trustee’s intermediate assumptions for expected rates of fertility, mortality, and immigration could dramatically alter this outlook. 

 

The same is true of the long-term growth rate of the economy. Were the economy to expand as rapidly in future decades as in past ones, the financial outlook for Social Security would improve somewhat, though not nearly enough to eliminate its long-term deficit. But the marked slowdown in the growth of the labor force over the next several decades virtually precludes this.

 

Medicare

The outlook for Social Security presents a fiscal challenge that pales in comparison to that posed by Medicare. 

 

The big news in this year’s report is the triggering of the “Medicare funding warning.” While the warning is new, it simply reflects the same dire financial outlook for the program we have been reporting for years and which was exacerbated by the recent addition of the Part D prescription drug benefit. Projected Medicare costs are even more sensitive to population aging than Social Security’s. But they are also projected to grow faster than those of Social Security over the entire projection period for a far more important second reason: the expectation that per capita health care costs will continue to grow faster than per capita GDP in the future, as they have in the past. 

 

As a result, this year’s report—as did last year’s— projects overall Medicare expenditures to increase from their 2007 level of 3.2 percent of GDP to 6.5 percent by 2030, and to 11.3 percent by the end of the 75-year period. In the absence of reform that greatly restrains these cost increases, taxes on the working age population and out-of- pocket payments by beneficiaries will both have to rise far faster than incomes in the decades ahead. The Medicare program’s Hospital Insurance (HI) component is inade- quately financed over the next 10 years, is already running an annual def- icit in tax income relative to expenditures, and is expected to exhaust its Trust Fund reserves in 2019. By then, annual revenues to the Trust Fund (generated primarily by Medicare’s 2.9 percent payroll tax) would cover less than 80 percent of projected costs. 

 

The gap between projected costs and revenues grows so rapidly thereafter that projected revenues are less than 40 percent of projected costs by 2050, and less than 30 percent by the end of the 75-year projection period. The present value difference between projected expenditures and dedicated revenues for the 75-year horizon for just the HI component of Medicare is $11.6 trillion, 70 percent higher than the analogous $6.8 trillion measure of the budgetary chal- lenge represented by OASDI as noted above. 

 

The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) component of Medicare— which covers outpatient services (Part B) and prescription drugs (Part D)—never experiences a shortfall between projected costs and revenues, since under current law, beneficiary premium income and general revenue transfers to the SMI trust fund are assumed to increase each year to match expected costs. But per capita expenditures for this program com- ponent, as for HI, are projected to grow in line with per capita health care costs over the long run. 

 

Thus, SMI trust fund revenues from premiums and general revenue transfers are expected to account for a growing share of beneficiary incomes and Federal general revenues over time. The level of general revenue transfers in excess of their current share of total Federal revenues amounts to $13.2 trillion over the next 75 years, and is an appropriate measure of the additional burden projected SMI expenditures will place on Federal finances during this period. 

 

Thus, if program costs grow as currently projected, the total additional burden that would be imposed on Federal finances by Medicare (HI plus SMI) over the 75-year projection period would be $24.8 trillion. This is more than five times the current outstanding Federal (publicly-held) debt and amounts to 3.4 per- cent of projected GDP over the same period. On a cash-flow basis, last year’s general revenue transfers to Medicare were equivalent to 12.3 percent of Federal income tax revenues.

 

To fully fund currently projected Medicare costs would require—in addition to currently dedicated sources of income from payroll taxes, premiums and the like—the equivalent in such transfers of nearly double this percentage of Federal income tax revenues (again, projected at their historical aver- age share of GDP over the past four decades) within 15 years and more than triple in 25 years. Such transfers would require that over the next 25 years either Federal spending on government programs other than Social Security and Medicare fall by almost 25 percent, or that income tax revenues increase by more than 25 percent from their historical shares of GDP. 

 

We should note that long-term projections of Medicare costs are subject to more sources of unexpected variation than are those for Social Security. In addition to the uncertainty inherent in the economic and demographic assumptions used in common with the Social Security projections, factors specific to health care—such as the rate of scientific break- throughs, the frequency of the development of new “blockbuster” drugs, the possibility of new diseases or wide reoccurrence of older ones, the development of new medical treatment techniques, and the preferences of the population for particular kinds of care—introduce further uncertainty into the future course of Medicare costs. 

 

The most important Medicare- specific assumption embodied in the Trustees’ long-term projections is that health care cost inflation, which has historically exceeded the growth in GDP on a per capita basis by more than two percentage points annually, will gradually decline over the 75-year projection period until it simply equals GDP growth at the period’s end. 

 

This assumption seems reasonable, since per capita expenditures on health care cannot grow faster than per capita GDP indefinitely without all other forms of consumption trending to zero. Our citizenry has demonstrated a strong propensity over the past half-century to increase the share of income spent on health care, and there is, as yet, no clear evidence of when, or even how, this trend might abate.

 

But if it does not do so soon, then the bleak fiscal picture portrayed in these reports will be bleaker still. 

 

Thus, along with the overall imperative to reform Medicare funding comes an urgent need for better understanding of the factors contributing to the growth of health care spending and how these factors might be moderated in the future. 

 

We encourage further work on this important issue. 

 

Conclusion

Social Security and Medicare both present daunting fiscal challenges, though Social Security’s is far more manageable analytically and dollar- wise. 

 

Their fiscal problems are driven by inexorable demographic change and, in the case of Medicare, relentless increases in health care costs, and are not likely to be greatly ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing. 

 

Prudence dictates action sooner rather than later to address these fiscal challenges.

 

 John L. Palmer, Trustee 

Thomas R. Saving, Trustee

 

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC: Each year the Trustees of the Social ...

by Drew Terry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 86 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 2:54:27 PM
 

David Walker, former GAO Comptroller General speaks out

He says the numbers don't add up...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 5:09:06 PM
 

Let's take

a lesson from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, when Sundance refused to jump of the cliff and into the water because he couldn't swim, Butch said, "What are you worried about, the fall will probably kill you."

In this instance, the fall is Medicare and in it's current state and deficit will bankrupt the U.S. before S.S. ever gets warmed up. Medicare takes in less money this year than it pays out and is expected to be defunct by 2017. I believe that 2012 is more correct as the 2017 date is predicated on growth, not recession.

On the other hand, S.S. is expected to be solvent until 2041 and with very little tweaking, would last until 2050. So why do we talk about Social Security rather than Medicare? It's much easier to fix.

by Mike Folkerth (97 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 464 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 9:44:18 AM
 

Clintons have taken ALOT Allready

.

My Parents were FEHB ( Federal Employee Health Beneficiaries - now deseased ) who were DENIED Covered Hospital Insurance, illegally billed for the denied covered claims, as OPM FEHB, HCFA, DHHS OIG, & The State of Michigan tried to FORCE ( fraud by fright ) my parents to empty thier bank accounts and savings to the Federal HMO Corporation, and illegally apply for State Medicaid.

1998 Clinton Library Documents - Health Care Reform - Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/CL-healthcare
.
1998 -- DHHS OIG and U.S. Attorney General -illegal agreement - PUBLIC FRAUD

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00983.htm
983 Guidelines for Implementation of the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control [ T42CFR417.1 ] Program

.

DHHS & Federal HMO T42CFR417.1 illegal agreement to INDUCE forfiture
.
TITLE 42-[ DHHS ]-PUBLIC HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES PART 417-[ Federal HMO ]-HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, Subpart B-- Qualified Health Maintenance Organizations: Services (g) Grievance procedures --ADVERSE DETERMINATION - illegal Denial of Existing Federal HMO Hospital Insurance Services T42CFR409.33, to force illegal HCFA State Medicaid T42CFR409.33 kickback conversions ). (h) Special rules: Enrollees under the Federal employee health benefits program (FEHBP). An HMO that accepts enrollees under the FEHBP (Chapter 89 of title 5 of the U.S.C.) may obtain and retain Federal qualification if, for its other enrollees ( GENERAL PUBLIC ), it complies with the requirements of section 1301(b) and 1301(c) of the PHS Act and implementing regulations in this subpart D and subparts B and C of this ......... T18CFR24CRIME.

.The Region V HCFA [ Chicago ] Office had a record high 940 new MSP cases filed in 1998. Contributing to this were PARTNERSHIP Arrangements with [ Federal HMO T42CFR417.1 ] Contractors and U.S. Attorneys in Michigan and Ohio........ 

.

1999 Federal HMO Hospital Service Contract Provider
Health Alliance Plan Detroit Michigan - Region V HCFA Chicago
OPM FEHB ( Federal Employee Health Benefits Program RI 73-015 .... page 15 )
.
OPM FEHBP " Hospital Extended Care Benefits " CITE: 42CFR409.33
.
The [ Federal HMO & DHHS Employee ] Plan [ Denies T42sec417.1 ] PROVIDES a comprehensive range of benefits when skilled nursing care is necessary & confinement in a skilled nursing facility is medically appropriate as determined by a plan doctor.
The [ Federal HMO & DHHS Employee ] Plan [ Denies T42sec417.1 ] PAYS FOR up to 730 days ( 2 years - value over $288,000.oo ) each continuous period of confinement or for sucessive periods seperated by less than 60 days.
This 730 days period will be reduced by 2 days for every Inpatient
HOSPITAL day Prior to ADMISSION to a Skilled Nursing Facility. ( Hospital
Transfers ) A new period of 730 days will begin after at least 60 days have elapsed
from the last date of discharge. You [ 'Covered' Individual are Denied T5CFR890.105 OPM illegal agreement to induce forfiture: OIG 1998 VOLENTARY DISCLOUSURE T42CFR417.1 Program' used to force illegal HCFA Medicaid kickback conversions ] Pay Nothing. All Medically Necessary Services Are [ Denied T42CFR417.1 Adverse Determination/Anti-dumping violation ] Covered, including: ::::::: bed, board & general nursing care ::::::: drugs, biologicals, supplies & equipement ordinarily provided or arranged by the skilled nursing facility when perscribed by a Plan Doctor.

.

DHHS OIG News Release October 21, 1998 ....... T18CFR371crime
VOLENTARY DISCLOUSURE of Health Care Fraud
For Immediate Release Contact: ……………Judy Holtz (202) 619-0893
Wednesday, October 21,1998 ……………….Ben St.John (202) 619-1028
The ( DHHS OIG ) Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) today unveiled an expanded and simplified PROGRAM For ( Federal ) Health Care Providers to 'Volentarily Report' ( internal control / self-audit T42CFR417.1 adverse determination, grievance procedure: misprison of a felony: anti-dumping violation ) Fraudulent Conduct ( T18CFR24Crimes ) Affecting [ Entitled Individuals ] HCFA Medicare/Medicaid, and other ( OPM FEHBP,TRICARE,CHAMPVA ) Federal health care programs. The [ Federal ( OPM FEHBP T5CFR890.105 ) HMO Contractor ] Provider will have the option of doing 'SELF-audit' [ DHHS T42CFR417.1 Anti-dumping violation ] in conformance 'with OIG'.

.

CARRIER _ COLOR OF LAW -- DHHS OIG 2008 Illegal SOLISITATION T18CFR371CRIME.
.
[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Notices] [Page 4248-4249] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja08-92]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Inspector General
SOLICITATION of Information and Recommendations for Revising the
Compliance PROGRAM Guidance For NURSING Facilities - [ T42CFR409.33 ]
AGENCY: Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
This Federal Register notice seeks the input and
recommendations of interested parties as OIG revises the compliance
PROGRAM guidance (CPG) For Nursing Facilities, ESPECIALLY those serving Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care program
beneficiaries [ Entitled Individuals ]. The nursing home industry has experienced a number of changes since OIG first published a CPG in this area (65 FR 14289; March 16, 2000).
The CPGs set forth OIG's suggestions on how 'PROVIDERS CAN' most effectively establish 'Internal Controls' ( SELF-Audit ) and implement monitoring procedures [ T42CFR417.1 grievance procedures - Adverse Determination / anti-dumping violation T18CFR4Crime ] to identify, correct, and prevent potentially fraudulent conduct.

OIG would appreciate specific comments, recommendations, and suggestions on risk areas for the nursing home industry, such as [ T42CFR417.1 ] the submission of false claims, as well as quality of care concerns, kickbacks, and accurate reporting of data to Medicare and Medicaid. Detailed justifications and empirical data supporting any suggestions would be appreciated.
Dated: January 16, 2008.
Daniel R. Levinson,
Inspector General.
[FR Doc. E8-1213 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P

.

DHHS OIG - BILLING CODE = intent to harm =  felony fraud against Federal Beneficiaries/American Citizens

 

by Kimball (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 102 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 1:09:23 PM
 

Social security

Projections of the Social Security trust fund running out of money are exaggerated in my opinion. I feel this is just a scare tactic to force privatization because wall street has its eye on the large amount of capital it would receive. Corruption and management fees generated in a private social security program would devastate lower wage earners ability to save so it would only benefit the rich.

What is even more absurd is that everyone can all ready open their own private retirement account why does a party (Republican) that preaches smaller government and individual freedom want to meddle in IRAs. I believe the reason is they take their marching orders from wall street and have become so subservient to corporate interests that they have lost sight of their own so called ideals.

With companies discontinuing pensions and people no longer saving money, because they are taught that a large mortgage interest deduction makes better sense, Social Security must remain strong or the streets will be filled with homeless seniors in a decade or two.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments) on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM