Rendll wrote the book “A Nation of Wusses

Ed Rendell: Ryan Is a Fiscal Fraud, But Democrats Lack the Guts to Cut Entitlements

Source: Yahoo

Category: Politics, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

11 Responses to “A Nation of Wusses”

  1. ilsm says:

    Look out the window at that squirrel, while the 1% are stealing the cook blind.

    Cutting entitlements, is like bombing Hanoi and because it might somehow make Thieu strong enough to run South Vietnam.

    The problem is not entitlements, cutting entitlements would create more problems than exist now.

    The issues are perpetual war and tax cuts.

  2. bmz says:

    ilsm: Agreed! SS is prefunded for the next 20+ years; and the ACA extended the Medicare trust fund’s life from 2016 to 2024 while INCREASING benefits. Based on this performance, 4 more years of Obama will probably eliminate all entitlement deficiencies w/o reducing benefits.

  3. Rick Caird says:


    “SS is prefunded for the next 20+ years” – Only if you believe in the tooth fairy and piggy banks. That so called pre funding is sitting in special treasuries and the money has already been spent. So, the “pre funding” has to come out of the general fund which, you probably did not notice, is running a tiny deficit of over $1 trillion a year.

    ” ACA extended the Medicare trust fund’s life from 2016 to 2024 while INCREASING benefits” – Only if you believe doctors and hospitals will work at a loss and still see Medicare insured patients. That is where the bulk of the $741 billion Medicare cut is coming from. More tooth fairy stuff.


    BR: Only if you don’t believe the US will pay back what they borrowed from Social Security (in violation of full faith and credit clause)

  4. VennData says:

    On the other hand the “It’s my money, I want it” crowd is loud, and proud. They are demandind further tax cuts.
    Can someone please explain why further tax cuts for the rich are going to bring down the deficit and pay off the debt? It has never worked in the past.
    Sheer loonacy.

  5. ellen1910 says:

    Medicare passed in 1965 — average life expectancy was 69 — today, the average life expectancy is 85 — Medicare was never intended to cover near 20 years of life — all according to Ed Rendell

    In 1965 the life expectancy of a worker coming on Medicare in remaining years — the only life expectancy number that matters — was 13.5/17.9 (Male/Female). It’s now (2009) 17.6/20.3.

    Ed Rendell is a BS artist otherwise known as a demagogue.

  6. dsawy says:

    The US will not pay back what it “borrowed” from Social Security. The US government doesn’t have to. There’s nothing sacred about the money in the SS account. It holds US Treasury obligations which can be “repaid” with other US Treasury obligations. They just roll the debt forward.

    But the actuarial mathematics of Social Security will result in benefit cuts, because there simply aren’t enough people paying into the system for the number of people drawing on the system. The Congress can cut benefits at any time they choose.

    For those who protest otherwise, I suggest you read up on the case law:

    There is no right to Social Security. The discussion on this ended with Flemming v. Nestor in 1960, per the above. Further, the enabling legislation for Social Security contains a provision which allows Congress to make any changes they see fit to the program in the future:

    “SEC. 1104. The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.”

    When the Congress finds they have no alternative, they will cut benefits, because it is mathematically impossible to do otherwise.

  7. bmz says:

    The money in the trust funds is money paid in by workers. There is enough(with SS taxes) to pay current benefits plus inflation for the indefinite future. To reduce SS benefits below that amount is to steal from retirees. Only the Republicans want to; I don’t see them being able to, if the electorate can be caused to understand that. This election is about which will win: Democratic attempts to educate vs. Republican attempts to obfuscate.

  8. dsawy says:

    You obviously didn’t read the Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor.

    Here’s the punch line for those of you who are too lazy to read it:

    The money you have paid into Social Security isn’t “yours.” Period. You have no property right to that money, so if the Congress chooses to re-allocate it or change benefit schedules, they can do so and there is no “theft.”

  9. rd says:

    The big problem is a focus on projections instead of an actual process.

    SS is not in serious “trouble” until you start getting in to 40+ year projections. the people who make these projections seem to have a problem accurately projecting 5 years, never mind 50. Tweaks to SS are probably needed about every 10 years to rebalance actuals versus previous projections. That would make the tweaks smaller allowing people to plan better instead of periodically having to come up with potentially radical changes.

    Medicare is almost purely a process problem related to a demographic bulge. The US medical system simply spends too much to achieve the same outcomes other countries can produce at 50% of the cost. The focus on “privatizing”as the sole potential solution is clearly a canard as it is clear that the private parts of the system (employer and individual paid health insurance) has increased its per capita costs at the same rate or greater as the government managed plans. The private sector models that seem to work, such as the Mayo Clinic, seem to not be particularly popular with the private medical sector, presumably because their revenue would drop (the whole point of controlling costs after all).

  10. Apinak says:

    I agree completely with Ellen1910, anyone who cites demographics to support cuts to SS is a demagogue. Changes in life expectancy were predictable and predicted. In fact, the increases in life expectancy are lower than originally predicted. In 1983 Greenspan and Reagan increased SS taxes to prefund the retirement of the baby boomers. The only reason we have a long term projected deficit is because they didn’t anticipate the huge change in income inequality. Because only the first ~$110,000 is taxed, growing inequality has meant a smaller portion of income is subject to the tax. Raise the cap and SS will be solvent indefinitely.

  11. Apinak says:

    The argument about whether or not the government has to pay SS is very silly. The government is ostensibly controlled by the voters. If we don’t want SS benefits cut, then they should not be cut. If voters no longer have enough control over government to ensure that SS benefits are not given away as tax cuts to the rich and corporations than that is the real problem, not some long-term projected shortfall in SS.