For seniors, help with Medicare, tax forms

Corbett is taking food out of our seniors mouths so he can handout more corporate welfare to his campain donors.

It can get no lower then a state government that means tests our seniors and childrens food sources.

Abolish Medicare, it's insolvent.

Medicare is not insolvent. The Medicare Trustees publish yearly reports stating the projected year that Medicare will go insolvent, which is currently 2024 (and even then, that's just in terms of covering 100% of costs; it would still cover the majority of costs for 75 more years). But guess what? In 1990, the projected insolvency year was 2003. In 1993, it was 1999. It's been going back and forth for nearly two decades, and not once has Medicare been in danger of immediate insolvency.

(source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm... )

FactCheck wrote:

Medicare is not insolvent. The Medicare Trustees publish yearly reports stating the projected year that Medicare will go insolvent, which is currently 2024 (and even then, that's just in terms of covering 100% of costs; it would still cover the majority of costs for 75 more years). But guess what? In 1990, the projected insolvency year was 2003. In 1993, it was 1999. It's been going back and forth for nearly two decades, and not once has Medicare been in danger of immediate insolvency.
(source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm... )

It's has a shortfall of like $50+ trillion. You source some left wing blog? Wow. Use Google search Mr. Left Wing Hack Check.

A shortfall is not the same as insolvency.

Think what you want of the CBPP (I have no idea which way they lean), but the relevant figures I quoted came directly from the Medicare Trustees. They're not partisan - just numbers. I'm a fiscal conservative myself, only interested in facts and not inaccurate fear-mongering.

FactCheck wrote:

A shortfall is not the same as insolvency.
Think what you want of the CBPP (I have no idea which way they lean), but the relevant figures I quoted came directly from the Medicare Trustees. They're not partisan - just numbers. I'm a fiscal conservative myself, only interested in facts and not inaccurate fear-mongering.

Whatever, it's going bust like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.

Social Security is the one that's already insolvent

Again, check your facts and cite your sources, because you are incorrect. Social Security is projected to be solvent through 2038 without any modification.

(Source: Congressional Budget Office, http://cboblog.cbo.gov/... )

FactCheck wrote:

Again, check your facts and cite your sources, because you are incorrect. Social Security is projected to be solvent through 2038 without any modification.
(Source: Congressional Budget Office, http://cboblog.cbo.gov/... )

They are already borrowing to make social security payments and the fund isn't even a fund. It has no assets.

I don't think you quite understand how these systems work. Please cite your sources in the future when you make such claims.

FactCheck wrote:

I don't think you quite understand how these systems work. Please cite your sources in the future when you make such claims.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

"The Department of the Treasury invests program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited. The trust funds represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, and provide automatic authority to pay benefits."

What's a "non-marketable" security? Well, that's a government bond that the government can't legally sell. It's not even legally a bond. It's just an IUO. Which means it's not actually a fund. Funds make investments. You can't invest in your own debt. You can't borrow money from yourself and promise to pay yourself back later with interest and call it an investment.

You don't actually even need a source to understand that it's not an investment. You just have to have common sense.

If selling non-marketable securities is illegal, then owners of savings bonds had better turn themselves in.

A non-marketable security is simply any security that is not sold on a normal exchange. They are perfectly legal to sell by the government. Common savings bonds are probably the most common type. SS trust fund money is put into US Government securities, then collected upon maturation. Not once has the government failed to pay up, with interest.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-marke...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/fundFAQ.html...

FactCheck wrote:

If selling non-marketable securities is illegal, then owners of savings bonds had better turn themselves in.
A non-marketable security is simply any security that is not sold on a normal exchange. They are perfectly legal to sell by the government. Common savings bonds are probably the most common type. SS trust fund money is put into US Government securities, then collected upon maturation. Not once has the government failed to pay up, with interest.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-marke...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/fundFAQ.html...

They aren't allowed to sell them and they never will. It's not they will ever run out of bonds. They can always issue more. It's not actually a scarce resource.

What you can't guarantee is that the checks will buy anything when they issue 60 trillion in bonds over the next 30 years and the bulk of it is monitizted by the FED. The U.S. government will default on it's debt/obligations or enter hyperinflation.