Social Security Cash Flow Suddenly Negative

June 13, 2010

Remember when Bush tried to reform Social Security, and the donks jumped all over him for scare mongering? Well the scare mongerel is now at the door … One of the many features of Obammunism and his shutting down the US economy. We should be proud we have national health care rationing. And a federal government bankrupt and too big too fail.

Michale Barone reports:

Here’s something I didn’t know, from financial blogger Bruce Krasting (via John Ellis): Social Security tax receipts for the first half of 2010: $346.9 billion; Social Security benefits payments for the same period: $347.3 billion. Before this year, projections have always been that Social Security wouldn’t cross that line into negative cash flow for five years or so. Now it’s a reality. Congress has been spending Social Security’s positive cash flow for years. Now there’s no positive cash flow to spend.

To see how the negative trend has accelerated, consider the same figures for the first half of 2009: Social Security tax receipts were $366.0 billion and Social Security benefits payments were $334.3 billion. A positive cash flow of $31.7 billion has disappeared in the course of just 12 months. Scary.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

How To Recognize — EPIC FAIL ?

June 7, 2010

Caracas stocks reached a record 52 week high on essentially very little volume, as financial stocks rose, but the absence of most brokers after the largest and most important were taken over by the government has ground activity to a halt, making specific changes in prices essentially irrelevant.

Volume was so low that just a few thousand dollars were traded all week for any local issue.

Three stocks moved up: Banco Provincial, Sivensa and Mercantil Servicios Financieros.

The Caracas Stock Index closed at 63,281, up 14.90% for the year, but down -42.55% in US dollar terms after a January devaluation.

Any similarity to Obammunsim is purely accidental.


Greece: First To Prove Thatcher’s Saying

May 6, 2010

Margaret Thatcher, in a television interview for Thames TV This Week on February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”

It has been popularly paraphrased in various forms:

  • “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].”
  • “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
  • “Eventually, socialists run out of other peoples’ money [to spend].”

Greece — They’re out Jim ….


The Biggest Fraud Ever: In Broad Daylight

April 23, 2010

Yes, it’s true, Obama lies — The unbending cost curve — Health Care:

An analysis from an objective source — Medicare’s actuary — says ObamaCare will increase costs and relies on projected savings that may be unrealistic. Now isn’t that a surprise?

The Obama administration has been trying hard to find good news in a new report by government experts on the outlook for the health care economy, now at 17% of GDP and continuing to climb.

To HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the analysis confirms that “the Affordable Health Care Act will cover more Americans and strengthen Medicare by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse.”

More neutral observers will notice that the administration no longer talks about “bending the cost curve” in health care. The analysis released last week by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary tells why. It looks ahead 10 years and reaches two conclusions about the new health care overhaul: More people will be covered, and costs will continue to soar. The cost curve is unbending still.

Chief Actuary Richard Foster pegs ObamaCare’s added costs (that is, beyond what was projected without the overhaul in effect) at $311 billion over 10 years. That’s just under 1% of overall expected health care spending, and administration officials are calling that sum a small price to pay for adding 34 million Americans to public or private insurance rolls.

But the president had set a goal of extending coverage without adding any new cost. More to the point, the problem of runaway costs that plagued the pre-overhaul health care system has not been solved. As Foster points out, much of what ObamaCare proposes to reduce the nation’s health tab, especially in Medicare, is politically unrealistic.

The overhaul projects a net decrease in projected Medicare spending (more accurately, a reduction in future spending increases) of more than $400 billion. But Congress has talked this way before and has been notably timid about pulling the trigger.

Under a 1997 law, for instance, a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians was supposed to go into effect on April 1. But Congress two weeks later put the cut on hold as part of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. As usual, mobilized doctors and frightened seniors got their way.

This pattern of avoiding politically difficult spending cuts has been going on pretty much since the start of Medicare. ObamaCare promises that this behavior will somehow change. That would be a miracle, and actuaries tend to stick with more mundane probabilities.


Obama: King For Life ?

March 3, 2010

Just like Hugo Chavez with his rigged up authoritarian ‘democracy’ run by his very own ‘Chicago thugs’. At least that is how he sees it — I suspect America has a slightly differing view of tyranny and tyrants.

And what exactly do you think they want as many socialist Mexicans for?

If I were “The Royals” I would take some time out and read the Declaration of Independence.


Recinciliation: Non-Starter

March 1, 2010

CATO has a summary of how reconciliation works, and doesn’t work.

On Sunday’s Face The Nation with Kent Conrad, more trouble showed up.

Since Republicans now hold 41 votes in the 100-seat chamber following Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts last month, reconciliation appears to be on the radar for many Democrats. But the prospect has drawn fierce debate among Democrats and Republicans, as was evident during Sunday’s “Face the Nation.”

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the possible use of reconciliation by saying that the procedure would only be used for “minor” issues with the bill.

“Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform,” he told host Bob Schieffer. “It won’t work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation; it was designed for deficit reduction.”

Conrad said the role played by reconciliation in health care reform “would be very limited. It would be on sidecar issues designed to improve what passed the Senate and what would have to pass the House for health care reform to move forward.”

Conrad said that owing to the Byrd rule, which states that non-budgetary sections of a bill must be removed before consideration, major portions of the legislation would need to be jettisoned. “That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. … The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care,”


Obama, Epic FAIL

February 16, 2010

Just 6% of Americans believe the $787 “porkulus slush fund” boondoggle created or saved any jobs according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: