Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

[GaryC 7]

hysteria.

Naiveté

They are two social programs that have been successful...and therefore two targets of the Right for decades.

What world do you live in? They have been total failures. You do realize that you or I will not see a penny of what we paid into SS don't you? Medicare is so bad that you have to pay for MORE insurance to cover what medicare doesn't cover. In a few years it will be gone also. This word really fits you, Naiveté.

Total failures? Come on, Gary...that's not even trying to honest.

Yes, your not willing to see the truth. Total failures, because the government didn't keep its promises. It spent the money in the SS trust fund and now it's going broke. Medicare taxes keep going up and yet my father must take out supplemental insurance to pay for what Medicare doesn't pay. Total failures both.

You seem to think that government is the answer. When will you understand that government is really the problem. The more government the more problems, it is as simple as that.

Edited May 13, 2009 by GaryC

[Peikko 1,575]

How can having something, however trashy be worse than having nothing for those millions that have nothing? I am not saying that the answer is federal intervention, but on the other hand, the alternative to the Democrat plan is more of the same which fails not only those who have no insurance for whatever reason, but many, many people who do. It's very, very wrong and something needs to be done, not a lot of nothing.

Fine, then lets find a way to fix it. Just so long as it doesn't involve the government running things. I will say it again, I would rather nothing be done than to have the government take over health care. Period.

What is the GOP proposing to solve this problem? McCain's ideas were total #######. Anything else on the table? It's too easy to say carry on as things are now rather than change for the worse (as you see it). Carrying on as things are will lead the US into total bankruptcy, or at least everyone who is on a middle class income and below.

[GaryC 7]

How can having something, however trashy be worse than having nothing for those millions that have nothing? I am not saying that the answer is federal intervention, but on the other hand, the alternative to the Democrat plan is more of the same which fails not only those who have no insurance for whatever reason, but many, many people who do. It's very, very wrong and something needs to be done, not a lot of nothing.

Fine, then lets find a way to fix it. Just so long as it doesn't involve the government running things. I will say it again, I would rather nothing be done than to have the government take over health care. Period.

What is the GOP proposing to solve this problem? McCain's ideas were total #######. Anything else on the table? It's too easy to say carry on as things are now rather than change for the worse (as you see it). Carrying on as things are will lead the US into total bankruptcy, or at least everyone who is on a middle class income and below.

I don't care what the GOP is proposing. They are as bad as the dems. I don't want ANY government control. The government isn't the answer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

hysteria.

Naiveté

They are two social programs that have been successful...and therefore two targets of the Right for decades.

What world do you live in? They have been total failures. You do realize that you or I will not see a penny of what we paid into SS don't you? Medicare is so bad that you have to pay for MORE insurance to cover what medicare doesn't cover. In a few years it will be gone also. This word really fits you, Naiveté.

Total failures? Come on, Gary...that's not even trying to honest.

Yes, your not willing to see the truth. Total failures, because the government didn't keep its promises. It spent the money in the SS trust fund and now it's going broke. Medicare taxes keep going up and yet my father must take out supplemental insurance to pay for what Medicare doesn't pay. Total failures both.

Use Right Measure to Judge Social Security's Success

It was written 9 yrs. ago, but relevant in that the same old arguments or fears keep being brought up. The Republicans have long tried to privatize SS. They hate it as you've demonstrated. The real hatred is that it has succeeded. It'd be great if the Right just accept the reality that some social programs can and do succeed, but then that would require them to rethink their ideology.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

What happened to the Lock Box?

[scandal 951]

hysteria.

Naiveté

They are two social programs that have been successful...and therefore two targets of the Right for decades.

What world do you live in? They have been total failures. You do realize that you or I will not see a penny of what we paid into SS don't you? Medicare is so bad that you have to pay for MORE insurance to cover what medicare doesn't cover. In a few years it will be gone also. This word really fits you, Naiveté.

Wow. Do you really believe that? Really? You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

Social Security was established by FDR during the Depression as part of the New Deal.

Medicare was established by Johnson in the 60s as part of the Great Society.

While many on the right love to criticize big government, these two programs materially advanced the standard of living of literally millions upon millions of American families and retirees, allowing them to live with dignity as part of a great social compact shared by all of us.

These programs are in trouble, no doubt. But to call them "total failures". Wow.

The failure to properly fund these entitlement programs is not a partisan one. It has been recognized for decades that they would become insolvent as the baby boomers reached retirement and began to draw down benefits. This was recognized by a Republican administration (Reagan) in the 80s, resulting in the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Ever since, an inept Congress led by majorities of both parties for three decades has failed to institute the obvious actuarial reforms needed to keep the programs solvent. Classic ostrich head in the sand syndrome.

I don't care what the GOP is proposing. They are as bad as the dems. I don't want ANY government control. The government isn't the answer.

Oh! I see. You're an anarchist. Gotcha

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

hysteria.

Naiveté

They are two social programs that have been successful...and therefore two targets of the Right for decades.

[Peikko 1,575]

How can having something, however trashy be worse than having nothing for those millions that have nothing? I am not saying that the answer is federal intervention, but on the other hand, the alternative to the Democrat plan is more of the same which fails not only those who have no insurance for whatever reason, but many, many people who do. It's very, very wrong and something needs to be done, not a lot of nothing.

Fine, then lets find a way to fix it. Just so long as it doesn't involve the government running things. I will say it again, I would rather nothing be done than to have the government take over health care. Period.

What is the GOP proposing to solve this problem? McCain's ideas were total #######. Anything else on the table? It's too easy to say carry on as things are now rather than change for the worse (as you see it). Carrying on as things are will lead the US into total bankruptcy, or at least everyone who is on a middle class income and below.

I don't care what the GOP is proposing. They are as bad as the dems. I don't want ANY government control. The government isn't the answer.

I am not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that if we remove all government control somehow economic forces will simply fix things?

[GaryC 7]

How can having something, however trashy be worse than having nothing for those millions that have nothing? I am not saying that the answer is federal intervention, but on the other hand, the alternative to the Democrat plan is more of the same which fails not only those who have no insurance for whatever reason, but many, many people who do. It's very, very wrong and something needs to be done, not a lot of nothing.

Fine, then lets find a way to fix it. Just so long as it doesn't involve the government running things. I will say it again, I would rather nothing be done than to have the government take over health care. Period.

What is the GOP proposing to solve this problem? McCain's ideas were total #######. Anything else on the table? It's too easy to say carry on as things are now rather than change for the worse (as you see it). Carrying on as things are will lead the US into total bankruptcy, or at least everyone who is on a middle class income and below.

I don't care what the GOP is proposing. They are as bad as the dems. I don't want ANY government control. The government isn't the answer.

I am not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that if we remove all government control somehow economic forces will simply fix things?

I am suggesting that the states decide what is best for each. The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches. I am rooting for another American revolution. We should get back to what the Founding Fathers wanted from the begining. The Federal government should only have the powers spelled out in the Constitution. Nothing more. Screw Washington, they are all crooks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who want s to get rid of Social Security?

By Steven Thomma Knight Ridder Newspapers, reprinted; Seattle Times, Sunday, February 06, 2005

Republicans hate a lot of things, but by far, the thing they hate the most is socialism. That is because they fear it the most. Social Security is not strictly socialism. Socialism means state or collective control of the means of production. To the extent that SSA taxes are partially paid by employers, Social Security does have some impact on the means of production. However if you think about it, Social Security is a tax on employees, not employers. The part paid by employers is simply window dressing to make employees feel better, that the employer is picking up some of the tab. They aren’t really, SSA is just part of the employees total compensation.

I suppose in the mostly dark recesses of the Republican mind, if Social Security were abolished, they think that they would be able to cut 7% from their payroll. That is infantile. While nominally payroll seems to go up when SSA taxes are raised, as in 1982, payrolls are adjusted to market levels in short order. In other words, Social Security has cost business little or nothing in the long run. It is a tax on workers as opposed to an income tax.

The main reason Social Security is the preeminent conservative angst is that income taxes are ultimately going to be required to actually pay part of Social Security benefits starting in about 2015. This is because the Social Security Trust Fund is held in government bonds, which must be redeemed to pay benefits.

If you examine the chicanery centered on the SSA taxes for the last twenty five years, you find some interesting facts. When it was instituted, Social Security operated by collecting about what it needed to meet current benefit payments. What came in was paid out. In 1982, that all changed. Greenspan and Holton proposed that SSA taxes be accelerated to save up for the pending retirement of the baby boomers. It must have seemed like a reasonable idea at the time.

The Greenspan plan sunk accelerated collections of SSA tax into government bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund. The result was essentially force feeding of the government coffers. Government grew and income taxes went down financed by a long term debt obligation whose repayment horizon lay in the distant future.

Under Clinton, the force feeding of SSA collections into government began to be referred to as the Social Security Surplus. Clinton used it to pay down other national debt, rightly assessing that in order for the debt to the Trust Fund to be repaid, we would need a solvent government. Paying down the extra-Social Security debt and balancing the budget seemed to assure that the government’s indebtedness to the Greenspan plan could be serviced.

No wonder they called Greenspan the “Maestro”. Did he or did he not foresee what the results have been, that increasing taxes were just being deferred until later? Did he foresee that the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund would be placed at risk by future politics? I expect he did. I expect that he foresaw that given the apparent surplus created by the SSA tax that politicians would not be able to resist lowering income taxes. It seems to have been a gamble that the political environment might change and that it would pay off for the wealthy. It has, and we are facing the question of whether we will be able to pay back the money lent to government by the Social Security Trust Fund.

So no matter that the SSA taxes have been spent on the operation of government, allowing lower income taxes in the past, the reality of the debt obligations of government to Social Security is coming home to roost. Republicans just simply do not want to honor the pay back the money that allowed them to avoid higher taxation in the past.

....

Essentially, Social Security is the symbol to Republicans that they are losing the class war. The symbol used to be unions, but the tables have turned on that. Republicans take class warfare very seriously because class warfare is about money. So while Social Security does not really have any impact on payroll or the bottom line, they view it with suspicion because it feels like socialism. And, in the not too distant future, the tax cuts that they have been enjoying are going to stop in order to pay back the Trust Fund.

Only God and the Republican National Committee know how far the Republicans will go in rolling back the social programs born in the Progressive Era. If you like the social programs of our government, you had better be preparing for a fight.

http://www.mondaymorningeconomist.com/ssacontinued.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches.

That's a wildly exaggerated generalization and you know it. If you want to base your views on such generalizations, that's your prerogative, but don't confuse it with reality.

[alienlovechild 75]

While many on the right love to criticize big government, these two programs materially advanced the standard of living of literally millions upon millions of American families and retirees, allowing them to live with dignity as part of a great social compact shared by all of us.

SS has little to with building standard of living because there's no net gain in productivity in taking from shrinking pool of contributors to an increasing number of relatively wealthier seniors. At one time, older people were poorer but hasn't that's been the case for years. The real answer is older people vote in larger numbers. write checks to candidates and attend a lot of public meetings. AARP is a powerhouse not a poorhouse in Washington.

Ever since, an inept Congress led by majorities of both parties for three decades has failed to institute the obvious actuarial reforms needed to keep the programs solvent. Classic ostrich head in the sand syndrome.

Right but we have no choice but I'd say smart people do their own retirements plans without solely depending on the government but the reality is make sure the government can't get your money before you end in a nursing home where they will take your assets until you can't pay- that's my uncle's story.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

However if you think about it, Social Security is a tax on employees, not employers. The part paid by employers is simply window dressing to make employees feel better, that the employer is picking up some of the tab. They aren’t really, SSA is just part of the employees total compensation

Right. Since I am self-employed, I pay 15.3% before income tax combined self-employment tax for Social Security and Medicare. All that Social Security and Medicare has done is shift wealth from working age citizens to retired citizens.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

[GaryC 7]

The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches.

That's a wildly exaggerated generalization and you know it. If you want to base your views on such generalizations, that's your prerogative, but don't confuse it with reality.

Thats right, go at life with your eyes wide shut. You need a dose of reality.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches.

That's a wildly exaggerated generalization and you know it. If you want to base your views on such generalizations, that's your prerogative, but don't confuse it with reality.

Thats right, go at life with your eyes wide shut. You need a dose of reality.

Gary, it's hard to argue with you when you take a position based on generalizations.