http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...=1&f=103943429Sears, Kmart Closings Will Shutter 3 Percent Of Company's Stores
There's the headline that "dozens of Kmart, Sears stores to close" and the topline news that "between 100 and 120 Sears and Kmart stores" are going to be shut down as the retailer looks to trim costs and move ahead after it endured a pretty poor holiday shopping season.
Besides, this is good for the US. You have to answer for all of the evil in the world that you have done, oppressing millions of people, interfering in the sovereign affairs of nations, retarding the social, political and economic development of countries, stealing the resources and wealth of countries.
Call it karma if you want, but you're all about to be served a heaping dose of it.
And then maybe, just maybe, you might actually become the Christian Nation you claim to be and "Do unto others...." but I doubt it.
Am I fucking god-like walk-on-water awesome or what:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thi...-20-2011-12-22Third-quarter GDP growth cut to 1.8% from 2.0%
Exactly as I freaking predicted, the third and final revision for 3rd Quarter GDP growth was 1.8%.
The initial was 2.5% (which I laughed at) and then came 2.0% in the second revision and the final is 1.8%.
I've been thinking about starting a Social Security/Medicare Collapse blog. I want people to see what's happening, so that they can make informed decisions, and also point out the incompetence of the government employees who prepared those reports. Especially the math. I want people to see the math and how fatally flawed it is (to the point of making me vomit). I mean seriously, this kind of incompetence is unwarranted, and you people are paying tax money for people to lie to you. I'm going to show you just a few things, and if you don't have the June 2011 Social Security Administration Actuarial Report, you can find it here:
If you down-load the report, either look at Page 36 (actual) or it should appear as Page 44 of 244 if you are using Adobe Reader. Specifically, this is
Table IV.A1.—Operations of the OASI Trust Fund, Calendar Years 2006-20a
I want you to look at the Assumptions for Calendar Years 2011 and 2012 at Net Payroll Tax Contributions (under Income). The figures provided are:
2011 $482.7 Billion
2012 $616.1 Billion
2011 $484.1 Billion
2012 $623.6 Billion
2011 $481.3 Billion
2012 $608.2 Billion
Those are projected increases of 27.64%, 28.82% and 26.37% respectively. Are those assumptions realistic? Possible? Feasible? No, it is none of those.
Those assumptions are impossible.
How in the hell can Social Security's (and Medicare's) revenues increase at such a fantastic rate? That could happen, if and only if, your unemployment rate was restored to 5% and your labor participation rate was restored to 66.4% or greater.
This is December 28, so you have 3 days to create 9 Million jobs. Again, is that realistic? Possible? Feasible? No, it is none of those.
And SSA has already taken into consideration the payroll tax cut that went into effect in January (2011) earlier this year.
I'll direct your attention back to the same page at the remaining years through 2020 for each of the Low, Intermediate and High Assumptions. For simplicity, let's focus on the Intermediate Assumptions.
Social Security projected payroll tax revenues for 2013 at $653.0 Billion and are based on a 5.99% increase over assumed revenues for 2012, which were supposed to increase 27.64%. That isn't going to happen.
So, what can we say about Social Security's revenue projections from 2012 to 2020?
They are wrong. The revenue projections for 2020 are based on a 5+% increase over 2019, which is based on a 5+% increase over 2018, all the way back to 2013, and those revenue projections are based on the 27% increase in 2012 which will never happen.
They have also failed to take into consideration your labor participation rate. In the pre-recession period, it was 66.4% but has been steadily decreasing to the present 64.0% rate. What does that mean? It means that 3.6 Million people have lost their jobs, have not worked, are not working now and will probably never work again for the rest of their natural lives. I'm looking at your country at 5% unemployment with a labor participation rate of about 62.8% by the end of the decade. That would effectively mean that 5.4 Million Americans permanently lost their jobs (and I've been saying since 2006 that 5 Million jobs would permanently be lost -- as in forever -- with "forever" meaning "at no time ever" will those jobs come back).
Right now the situation is that 3.6 Million fewer Americans are not working and not paying Social Security payroll taxes, so how can Social Security revenues possibly increase?
They cannot. Your labor participation rate must be restored to 66.4% in order to collect the revenues that Social Security claims it will be collecting, and if it doesn't, then that means you burn through the Trust Fund faster, causing Social Security to collapse in 2028, and not in 2036 (Combined OASI/OADI Trust Fund) as SSA claims. That means a 23% cut in Social Security benefits in 2028 in order to keep pay all beneficiaries.
Go to the Social Security calculator and find out what your estimated monthly benefits will be for your retirement, then subtract 23%. That means if your estimate is $1,183 per month, then you would only really get $910/month.
Originally, I was of the opinion that eliminating the cap on Social Security would resolve many of the problems, but that is not the case. People will go to the IRS website and see that there were 236,883 in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million.
The hauled in $727 Billion, or an average of $3,069,025
I'll show you how the idiots at the CBO do this, and how fantasy and reality don't mix.
We'll just call the Social Security cap $110,000 for easy (well easier) math.
So 236,883 people will pay 6.2% on $110,000 for a total of $6,820 per person and an aggregated total of $1,615,542,060 ($1.6 Million).
236,883 people already paid FICA on the first $110,000 for a total taxable income of $26,057,130,000 ($26 Billion).
CBO will then subtract $26 Billion from $727 Billion, to get $701 Billion, then they think they will collect 6.2% taxes on that $701 Billion, which would amount to another $43,462,000,000 ($43 Billion) in FICA revenues for Social Security. And additional $43 Billion would certainly help (don't get me wrong), but that's only if you actually collect $43 Billion. There's nothing to stop the more than 50% of NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, actors, actresses, musicians and entertainers from having their salaries paid as deferred compensation, in order to avoid paying the payroll tax. They can covert the deferred compensation to cash later, and pay personal income taxes, but avoid paying the Social Security FICA tax. Then of course the other 50% who earn more than that are mostly CEOs and presidents. They can rather easily set their salary at $1 Million, pay themselves $19 Million in stock options, then convert the stock options to cash and pay the Capital Gains, then avoid paying the Social Security FICA tax.
There are as many clever schemes as there are clever tax accounts.
In addition to elminating the cap, you'd have to also employ means-testing. That means
<$100,000 100% OASI
$100,000 to $150,000 85% OASI
$150,000 to $200,000 60% OASI
$200,000 to $250,000 50% OASI
>$250,000 and above get 0%
That might extend Social Security to maybe 2040. Maybe even 2050, before the system just totally collapses.
I hate to be a party killer and rain on people's parades, but look at Page 66 (actual) which should appear as Page 74 of 244 in Adobe Reader. Specifically, the notes under
Table IV.B6.—Unfunded OASDI Obligations for 1935 (Program Inception) Through the Infinite Horizon, Based on Intermediate Assumptions
All of Social Security's assumptions are based on the US having a GDP of "$1,460.4 trillion" in the year 2085 or
That is $1.4 QUADRILLION. Lest anyone be confused, enter "1460.4" into your calculator then multiply by 1,000,000,000,000 (1 TRILLION).
Your GDP is presently $15,059,000,000,000 or $15.05 TRILLION.
It is 2011. We're going to 2085.
At what rate does your GDP need to grow annually to get from $15 TRILLION to $1.4 QUADRILLION?
That is impossible. You are a post-Industrialized nation. A rate of 3% is normal and 4% would be simply stellar.
Let's analyze your GDP of late:
Notice anything? Your GDP has declined somewhat.
Is that unusual? No. Again, you are a post-Industrialized nation, and you did not complete Industrialization 100% until the mid-1960s. I call it 1964, but if you want to argue 1965 or even 1966 when you finished industrializing I'm not going to get hot and bothered. Agriculture is always the last phase or aspect of Industrialization on a national level and you did not fully start industrializing the Agricultural Sector until the early 1950s and you finished in the mid-1960s. Your population changed from a majority rural to a majority urban during that time, as part of the Industrialization process.
Let us for the sake of argument assume for the moment that 2001-2010 is an outlier and that your GDP generally grows at just over 3%.
How does 3% = 6.4%?
How are you going to make it to $1.4 QUADRILLION if your economy only grows at 3%?
Well, you aren't going to make it.
At 3%, your GDP will grow from $15 TRILLION in 2011, to a mere $134.1 TRILLION in 2085.
We seem to have a discrepancy, in fact, a short-fall of about $1.325 QUADRILLION.
Where on Earth is Social Security going to find the money to pay beneficiaries through 2085 when their projections are based on a mythical GDP of $1.4 QUADRILLION?
For those who don't understand how this comes into play, it works like this:
1] Social Security makes the bogus claim that your GDP will grow at 6.4% and therefore, in the year 2035, your GDP will be $66 TRILLION.
2] A percentage of your GDP is payroll, ie labor earnings paid to workers. For shats and gaggles, let's just say for easy math that this percentage is 20%.
3] Because SSA erred on the GDP assumptions, they are assuming that 20% payroll will be $13,200,000,000,000 ($13.2 TRILLION).
4] Because SSA falsely believes payroll will be $13.2 TRILLION, it will derive payroll taxes of 6.2% for Social Security revenues, or $818,400,000,000 ($818 Billion) in 2035.
That is not going to happen.
And just think, your tax dollars are paying to employ fucktards like that who are dumber than a box of rocks.
The June 2011 Medicare Actuarial Report makes the exact same mistakes that SSA makes. Medicare claims the Trust Fund is solvent through 2024, but that isn't true at all. My initial indications are that Medicare will collapse in 2018, which is just a few years away.
There is no saving Medicare. It will have to undergo a major over-haul with major revisions and changes in the way it operates.
As I see, there are 3 possible ways to go if you want to save Medicare:
1] Change Medicare to Catastrophic coverage only. That means seniors will have to have their own "health insurance" (snicker) if they want to doctor's office visits covered.
2] Change Medicare to primary/basic care coverage only. That means seniors will have to pay for their own catastrophic coverage plans.
3] Reclassify all medical procedures, devices and prescription drugs as life-saving, life-threatening and elective. Seniors pay 100% out of pocket for anything elective. That means Viagra and penis pumps are elective, and should be paid for by taxpayers. Prescription allergy drugs, like Claritin are elective, because they do not save lives, nor do they (in most cases) prevent life-threatening conditions. Allergy drugs are "feel good" drugs. Seniors can pay 100% out of pocket for that crap. And you'll need "death panels." Didn't they give Obama's grandmother a hip-replacement even though she was dying of cancer or something like that? That kind of stupidity has to end.
I don't think any of those will go over big, but you don't have any choice in the matter. You don't have the money to pay for it. Wishing you had the money, or pretending that you do doesn't change the fact that you don't have the money to pay for (you never did --- and never will). You can tax every person and business 100% and you still wouldn't have the money (and it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't have an economy either).