Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bye Bye Social Security and Medicare

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, May 14, 2009.

  1. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Social Security and Medicare finances worsen - Yahoo! Finance

    If you are 40+ years old, you can enjoy the benefit in the short time. If you are 35 or less, you will get nothing when you retire.

    It sucks to work hard and pay your fair share for years and the government will say 'IOU' in the end.

    I'm not sure how long Obama's universal health care is going to last if 2 biggest government programs are gone.
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  2. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    the problem is that johnson led the charge in raping social security in order to pay for the vietnam war.......and it hasn't stopped since........the federal goverment owes the SS trust over 10T dollars........

    the perfect example of why nobody should want to look to the goverment to do anything like health or retirement for you......all it manages to do is pile up the money for them to throw away on stupid stuff.........

    people need to think about this when it comes to a health program which the government will provide.......one just needs to look at medicare to see what you will have....no thanx
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,624
    Likes Received:
    214
    Ratings:
    +506 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    They'll survive by raising taxes, cutting benefits and (a subset to the latter) making the retirement age higher. SS is crap and should be abolished and replaced by a lower taxed system that's just for the aged indigent - it should be welfare for the old, not a retirement system for everyone.
  4. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I have two good questions for everybody:

    1- Are medicare and medical going to be disappeared if we have 'universal health care'? I think so because this new program is going to be the same if not better. I can't see the reason for these 3 programs to exist.

    2-Why does Obama want us to contribute to SS when everybody knows that it's not going to be there for some of us in 2037?

    Sorry to say that i'm one of these people. Unlucky me!
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,094
    Likes Received:
    214
    Ratings:
    +506 / 6 / -2

    Didn't someone in another thread, just yesterday, say that all this insolvency talk was BS? Hmmm...

    I just saw that they now say we're going to run $500 Billion deficits for at least a decade. Nice!
  6. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The change we are going to see and believe. Remember?
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,829
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13

    So when the social welfare sustems are going broke due to demographics. What do you do?


    If you are a socailist, you take over the Medical System and tell everyone you will insure 10 of millions (many of whom are here illegally) and lower cost, even though we know that SS and Medicare cost far more than the projections of the politicans.

    I believe we are looking at >50T in unfunded liabilities, perhaps with national healthcare we can go voer 100T in unfunded liabilities.


    Totally insane.
  8. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Baby Boomer Alert: The Truth Behind Social Security Propaganda | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  9. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    And just so everybody's clear, the real game is to privatize SS generating instant private wealth for a very special few. The attacks on SS have come from the right for a long, long time. But my most favorite one ever was Bush's. Let's take a trip down memory lane.

    How Bush's Plan Would Secure Social Security

    Heh.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,829
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13

    You book was published 9 years ago seriously out of date, sorta like the programs they were writing about.

    Do the math, how many workers per retiree when the program was started, how many workers per retiree currently, how many worker per retiree by 2040.


    The numbers don't work unless you are a goofy lefty.
  12. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    You don't know the numbers because 1) you haven't read the book and 2) you haven't read wildo's quote.
  13. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Follow the bouncing ball H ... Y ... S ... T ... E ... R ... I ... A ... HYSTERIA!
  14. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Hmmmm.

    Heh.
  15. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0



    Ahhhh.

    Heh.
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,519
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Medicare is the one you have to worry about now. SS is a ways down the road.

    Medicare is set to be unable to pay hospitals etc by 2017, based on the same numbers that put SS at "exhausted" in the 2030s. SSA stipulates that "exhausted" means the exhaustion of the trust fund. At that point SS depends on revenues flowing in from the then-current SS tax rate:

    2009 Trustees Report: Section II.D, Projection

    This from the report Yahoo purports to summarize.

    It is not that there is no problem or that the problem is BS, or any such balderdash. It is that there is a problem but that SS does not decline to zero in 2037.

    By the way: the rolling estimates of when this happen don't change because some egghead can't work a calculator and just TELL us already. The estimates change year over year because there are basic actuarial assumptions about who will be paid what, and more fluid accounting assumptions about assets "in" the fund, which are "in" the fund on an ow-sies basis, from what I understand. Regardless, as we have known for some time, the system is and has been behind the eight ball based on a known demographic change, vis, the baby boom. The "echo boom" of so-called millennials may be in much better shape than Gen. X, people born from, say, '64-'84 or so. A lot depends on how many kids they have, how many people are working in the country in general, and whether the Baby-boomer-vacated leadership (high earnings posts) are filled solely by Gen. Xers or by Gen. Xers augmented by the best and brightest Gen. Yers. Blah blah blah. You get the picture: we have more unknowns the further out you get.

    But by the projections currently under discussion, nobody currently reading this board -- well, maybe Tanked, because he might be 12 -- will be alive when SS is forced to pay ZERO dollars to retirees, or for that matter less than 74% of promised benefits.

    There are many ways to control costs:

    - Index S.S. COLAs to inflation rather than wage growth. The current formula assumes that when America's workforce gets more money to spend, so should America's seniors. But if America's workers get less to spend (as happens from time to time,) there is no decrease in S.S. The real concern is that one day your benefit won't pay for the alpo (or whatever.) Index it to inflation and it always pays for the basics it covers.

    - Means-test Social Security payouts. If you have the means to pay yourself $250K per year (current dollars) for the amount of time you can actuarily expect to live, you don't need Soc. Security (for instance.) You might even call the cut-off $100K. At some point, only pay 90% of the promised benefit. Or 80%. Or some similar species of means-testing.

    - They've already implemented the requirement that one work longer. The numbers for my "normal" retirement age put me at 68 (I believe). My wife's "normal" retirement is 66. She's a boomer, I'm on the cusp of Gen. X. It's already in progress.

    - To right the ship, the current 12.4% OASDI rate (paid half by you and half by your employer) would need to gradually increase to 14.2%. To you the worker that translates to a change from 6.2% to 7.1%.

    But there is no magic way to control costs: the "magic market" solution, a failed de-reg era "solution" of the irrational exuberantists, would look great in booms and terrible in busts. WE DO NOT KNOW THE FUTURE OF ANY GIVEN INVESTMENT STRATEGY, but we DO know the shortfalls we are looking at (give or take.) We DO NOT KNOW that the market will return the historic startup-century rate (or higher) so blithely assumed by, oh let's say California's public pension fund managers.

    We have among us public policy experts, evidently, who believe that in the future we will all be wealthy. We have a proposal on the table to only pay SS as "welfare for the elderly indigent," assuming a remainder population of perfectly solvent older Americans. This makes me wonder just how indigent he wants the elderly to become before they have access to S.S. Without personal savings or a defined benefit pension (a vanishing breed,) this strategy is simply an extremist version of one of the cost-cutting suggestions above, i.e., means-testing social security. The stipulated version (as I understand it) would mean granting social security only to those below the poverty rate. I do not support the notion that the bulk of America's retirees must be reduced to poverty.

    Now then, let's talk seriously -- key word, seriously, not ideologically -- about retirement and retirees.

    On the one hand, there is still a group of workers who were promised "30 and out" by their employers. They were promised this IN A CONTRACT -- remember the "sanctity" of a contract? Well, some of them expect based on this to retire at 50. If they did so and their employer goes bankrupt they're in a world of hurt. But that's just an aside. The real point is, that on one end of the spectrum, some people were given an expectation that they'd be retired longer than they worked.

    On the other end of the spectrum, where most people fall, there is a reasonable expectation of 5 or 10 years wherein the money you paid in will come back to you, from the various instruments you invested in, whether voluntarily or otherwise: A defined benefit pension, if you're lucky enough to have one; a 401(k) or other defined contribution plan; private investment/savings; and of course, Social Security. The idea is that if you've worked until you're 70 and put money aside in various ways, with the promise that you can have a few years of being left alone when your body isn't quite what it once was, etc., then for Christ's sake, you should be able to retire.

    What we are arguing about is whether you should apply the multiplier .74 by the amount specified in your last social security statement, not whether you should get the full benefit or zero per month... except in the case of those who want to abolish social security in order to create a very large alpo-eating elderly underclass.

    By the way, if you are really hot and bothered about making social security solvent, your best bet is to encourage the world's laxest ICE enforcement. The fund gains significantly from the payment of OASDI taxes by undocumented workers who then take nothing out of the fund.

    PFnV
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  17. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    love these clowns (including reich) with their fuzzy math to say nothing is wrong.........he's just covering his own arse.......

    this is no different than barney frank hooting 3 years ago that there's no mortgage problem

    simple fact is that there is a 13.8T shortage in the SS trust.....and these clowns are saying 'baaah, everything is great'.....and once its not, you dopes will be the first ones to blame the cons
  18. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    So no actual critique of the arguments presented huh? I'm so surprised:rolleyes:
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,519
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    1) Read the actual report.

    1a) Nobody says "nothing's wrong."

    1b) Many people say "A lot is wrong but the sky is not falling"

    2) If you do not understand the program, you don't know how much is wrong, which is the key to such discussions.

    I don't think Reich says "nothing's wrong." But then I don't speak for Reich, so who cares.

    I do think that the fact of the matter is that much is wrong, but everything is not wrong.

    You guys need to wrap your heads around gray.

    PFnV
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,617
    Likes Received:
    141
    Ratings:
    +375 / 3 / -15

    Which is why I can't believe people vote Barney Boy back in time after time.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>