Medicare and Social Security will go bust sooner

[/dev/null]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43023780

[4BillsintheBurgh]

I guess I should sue now to get back the money I've put in.

[OCinBuffalo]

Just read my signature. I have been saying this since college.

[TPS]

Just read my signature. I have been saying this since college.

Holy crap! It's gonna be broke in 25 years?!?

Well, not quite broke, it just won't be able to meet 100% of its obligations based on today's projections. You'll still get 80% of your benefits if no changes are made.

[OCinBuffalo]

Holy crap! It's gonna be broke in 25 years?!?

Well, not quite broke, it just won't be able to meet 100% of its obligations based on today's projections. You'll still get 80% of your benefits if no changes are made.

And that's OK? Even if we take what you are saying as the truth, by what standard is getting F'ed out of 20% of your money...OK? Is that the Democrat standard? The Obama standard?

 

We have the means and method to fix these programs, and make them better...but according to you, and the rest of the left, we should settle for a precarious 80% instead?

 

Yeah, this is why we should never let the far-left be in charge of anything: because when one of their grand, sweeping, one-size-fits-all plans fails, they always tell us to be happy with what got, and forget about what they promised. Or, they tell us to be happy with nothing, and blame the failure on everybody else but themselves.

[TPS]

And that's OK? Even if we take what you are saying as the truth, by what standard is getting F'ed out of 20% of your money...OK? Is that the Democrat standard? The Obama standard?

 

We have the means and method to fix these programs, and make them better...but according to you, and the rest of the left, we should settle for a precarious 80% instead?

 

Yeah, this is why we should never let the far-left be in charge of anything: because when one of their grand, sweeping, one-size-fits-all plans fails, they always tell us to be happy with what got, and forget about what they promised. Or, they tell us to be happy with nothing, and blame the failure on everybody else but themselves.

The point is that SS will not be broke. No where in that article did it say that it's actually a funding short fall, which it will be 25 years into the future. This spin is being pushed in order to get the masses to accept cuts NOW! Which is absolutely idiotic. But the dopes will swallow it.

 

Medicare is a serious problem which needs to be resolved.

 

As far as getting one's money out of SS, that depends on how long you live! If you live long enough, you will take out more than you ever put in. The total you put into it is irrelevant to the total you take out (other than qualifying you for a certain monthly payment)! So your statement about getting F'ed out of 20% of your money just shows your ignorance, especially when you try to tie it to one's politics. Yeah, it's my liberal philosophy....

 

SS is a pay-as-you-go system. Our SS taxes support current retirees, not our future benefits, which is why it's idiotic to have someone tell you/us that we need to raise taxes (or cut benefits) NOW in order to support future retirees.

[OCinBuffalo]

The point is that SS will not be broke. No where in that article did it say that it's actually a funding short fall, which it will be 25 years into the future. This spin is being pushed in order to get the masses to accept cuts NOW! Which is absolutely idiotic. But the dopes will swallow it.

 

Medicare is a serious problem which needs to be resolved.

 

As far as getting one's money out of SS, that depends on how long you live! If you live long enough, you will take out more than you ever put in. The total you put into it is irrelevant to the total you take out (other than qualifying you for a certain monthly payment)! So your statement about getting F'ed out of 20% of your money just shows your ignorance, especially when you try to tie it to one's politics. Yeah, it's my liberal philosophy....

 

SS is a pay-as-you-go system. Our SS taxes support current retirees, not our future benefits, which is why it's idiotic to have someone tell you/us that we need to raise taxes (or cut benefits) NOW in order to support future retirees.

So, when the biggest retirement plan of all time fails to return more than putting your money in f'ing saving account after 50 years of "saving"....not only do you call that "progress"...your only solution will be "raise taxes/SSI contributions" in 25 years? You have been portraying SSI as a F'ing savings account since FDR....but only now that the flaws in it are becoming clear...once again you redefine "progress" and "success".

 

Yes, pardon me for not seeing the wisdom of your liberal philosophy.

 

Once again we see the difference between progress and "progressive progress". I think it's far past time for the rest of us to ban your use of the the word "progress" to describe anything you support.

[pBills]

And that's OK? Even if we take what you are saying as the truth, by what standard is getting F'ed out of 20% of your money...OK? Is that the Democrat standard? The Obama standard?

 

We have the means and method to fix these programs, and make them better...but according to you, and the rest of the left, we should settle for a precarious 80% instead?

 

Yeah, this is why we should never let the far-left be in charge of anything: because when one of their grand, sweeping, one-size-fits-all plans fails, they always tell us to be happy with what got, and forget about what they promised. Or, they tell us to be happy with nothing, and blame the failure on everybody else but themselves.

 

 

 

Yes, you are right... the Left doesn't care about this.

[Joe Miner]

Another article. Same topic.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329693085442106.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

 

Bad News for Younger Workers. Unfortunately, younger workers have a great deal to worry about. Even though their parents' and grandparents' benefits are fairly safe, theirs are not. Any worker born after 1970 will reach full retirement age after the trust fund is exhausted. Unless Congress acts soon, younger workers can look forward to paying full Social Security taxes throughout their careers but receiving only about 75 percent or less of the benefits that have been promised to them. In addition, they will have to repay the Social Security trust fund, an expense that will total almost $6 trillion by the time the trust fund is exhausted in 2036.

 

Yeah, let's wait till it's out of money completely before we address it.

 

If we raise a generation to expect only a 75% payout, then they won't have a problem when they get a 75% payout. Problem solved.

 

Just consider it a simple cost of living fee.

 

Or in TPS's world, just don't die, and you'll eventually collect your money, and maybe even more. Good thing not having that money at the time you retire couldn't possibly affect whether you live long enough to collect all of your money.

[TPS]

So, when the biggest retirement plan of all time fails to return more than putting your money in f'ing saving account after 50 years of "saving"....not only do you call that "progress"...your only solution will be "raise taxes/SSI contributions" in 25 years? You have been portraying SSI as a F'ing savings account since FDR....but only now that the flaws in it are becoming clear...once again you redefine "progress" and "success".

 

Yes, pardon me for not seeing the wisdom of your liberal philosophy.

 

Once again we see the difference between progress and "progressive progress". I think it's far past time for the rest of us to ban your use of the the word "progress" to describe anything you support.

YOU have the wrong guy. I have been portraying it for what it is--a pay as you go system. Go beat some other dead horse...

[OCinBuffalo]

YOU have the wrong guy. I have been portraying it for what it is--a pay as you go system. Go beat some other dead horse...

 

I reserve the right to beat any fool who uses arguments of convenience.

 

We have the ability to fix this now. And instead of that, you tell me to be happy with 80%....yep, that's "progress" for ya.

[Adam]

So, when the biggest retirement plan of all time fails to return more than putting your money in f'ing saving account after 50 years of "saving"....not only do you call that "progress"...your only solution will be "raise taxes/SSI contributions" in 25 years? You have been portraying SSI as a F'ing savings account since FDR....but only now that the flaws in it are becoming clear...once again you redefine "progress" and "success".

 

Yes, pardon me for not seeing the wisdom of your liberal philosophy.

 

Once again we see the difference between progress and "progressive progress". I think it's far past time for the rest of us to ban your use of the the word "progress" to describe anything you support.

First thing I would like to see, is the age for social security raised. It has turned into something that it was never intended to be.

[TPS]

Another article. Same topic.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329693085442106.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

 

Yeah, let's wait till it's out of money completely before we address it.

 

If we raise a generation to expect only a 75% payout, then they won't have a problem when they get a 75% payout. Problem solved.

 

Just consider it a simple cost of living fee.

 

Or in TPS's world, just don't die, and you'll eventually collect your money, and maybe even more. Good thing not having that money at the time you retire couldn't possibly affect whether you live long enough to collect all of your money.

REad the article again, especially the part that says the government will have to raise taxes, borrow or cut other programs today to repay the special purpose bonds that provide funds to pay current liabilities. Reagan raised taxes on SS (via the Greenspan commission) in the 1980s to do exactly what some of you think needs to be done, it created a "surplus" that is supposed to be used to pay benefits when the benefits exceed revenues, as they currently do. NOW, read what I just wrote about how that "surplus" will be re-paid--history is about to repeat if you believe that raising SS taxes TODAY will provide resources for tomorrow under the current system.

 

Raising taxes today provides resources for the government today, which lowers its deficit today, which puts it in a better financial position for tomorrow. This is a nice little trick to get working class folks to accept higher taxes, and the Heritage Foundation, a right wing group, is certainly going to promote the interest of workers....right...

 

I reserve the right to beat any fool who uses arguments of convenience.

 

We have the ability to fix this now. And instead of that, you tell me to be happy with 80%....yep, that's "progress" for ya.

If that's your interpretation, then you're an idiot. While SS needs some "fixing," you don't fix a pay-as-you-go system by saving more today for tomorrow. That's not the same as saying be happy with 80% you dolt.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, you are right... the Left doesn't care about this.

 

Well there's "act like you care" and care.

 

Just like there's "progressive" and progress.

 

And then there's "well we know we are going to get smoked, again, so let's try to do nothing until the election". Instead of taking a "hey, we were able to work with Republicans" small, 15-20 house seats/4-8 Senate Seat/hold on to the Presidency by less than 6 electoral votes beating....

 

...you want a 40 house seat/15 Senate Seat/Republican President landslide and the mandate that comes with it, beating?

 

Uh, OK. Is that "progressive progress"?

[DC Tom]

Holy crap! It's gonna be broke in 25 years?!?

Well, not quite broke, it just won't be able to meet 100% of its obligations based on today's projections. You'll still get 80% of your benefits if no changes are made.

 

I'm trying to think of anything in the world that isn't considered broken when meeting only 80% of its obligations...

[Joe Miner]

REad the article again, especially the part that says the government will have to raise taxes, borrow or cut other programs today to repay the special purpose bonds that provide funds to pay current liabilities. Reagan raised taxes on SS (via the Greenspan commission) in the 1980s to do exactly what some of you think needs to be done, it created a "surplus" that is supposed to be used to pay benefits when the benefits exceed revenues, as they currently do. NOW, read what I just wrote about how that "surplus" will be re-paid--history is about to repeat if you believe that raising SS taxes TODAY will provide resources for tomorrow under the current system.

 

Raising taxes today provides resources for the government today, which lowers its deficit today, which puts it in a better financial position for tomorrow. This is a nice little trick to get working class folks to accept higher taxes, and the Heritage Foundation, a right wing group, is certainly going to promote the interest of workers....right...

 

 

If that's your interpretation, then you're an idiot. While SS needs some "fixing," you don't fix a pay-as-you-go system by saving more today for tomorrow. That's not the same as saying be happy with 80% you dolt.

 

Read my post again. Nowhere did I claim to advocate 1 solution or another. Good strawman though. I simply think that waiting until until SS is out of money to start fixing it is ridiculous.

[OCinBuffalo]

REad the article again, especially the part that says the government will have to raise taxes, borrow or cut other programs today to repay the special purpose bonds that provide funds to pay current liabilities. Reagan raised taxes on SS (via the Greenspan commission) in the 1980s to do exactly what some of you think needs to be done, it created a "surplus" that is supposed to be used to pay benefits when the benefits exceed revenues, as they currently do. NOW, read what I just wrote about how that "surplus" will be re-paid--history is about to repeat if you believe that raising SS taxes TODAY will provide resources for tomorrow under the current system.

 

Raising taxes today provides resources for the government today, which lowers its deficit today, which puts it in a better financial position for tomorrow. This is a nice little trick to get working class folks to accept higher taxes, and the Heritage Foundation, a right wing group, is certainly going to promote the interest of workers....right...

 

 

If that's your interpretation, then you're an idiot. While SS needs some "fixing," you don't fix a pay-as-you-go system by saving more today for tomorrow. That's not the same as saying be happy with 80% you dolt.

I never said anything of the sort. I said, you have a political problem, and you think redefining success is the answer and/or you want to apply fiscal policy/terms to a political problem? OK Ross Perot, have at it.

 

When you are done with your flip charts...you still have a political problem, and your answer, and what a surprise, it's the only answer we ever hear: "raising taxes", is not the solution to the political problem. If you think it is: then you sir, are the dolt here.

 

Unless of course you want to see a massive beat down in 2012 elections for Democrats.

 

I'm trying to think of anything in the world that isn't considered broken when meeting only 80% of its obligations...

 

Not the point, Tom. He wants to get out his spreadsheets and flipcharts and then say "see my awesome financial ability?" Therefore my answer "raise taxes" is correct, and who cares about the political albatross around my neck.

Edited May 18, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Not the point, Tom. He wants to get out his spreadsheets and flipcharts and then say "see my awesome financial ability?" Therefore my answer "raise taxes" is correct, and who cares about the political albatross around my neck.

 

I know. But his point rests on the pillar of "it's not 'broken', because it'll mostly work," which is completely ludicrous.

[TPS]

I'm trying to think of anything in the world that isn't considered broken when meeting only 80% of its obligations...

Who said "broken"? I said it's not broke, as in the system will NOT be out of money as the article implied, and what most of the responders seem to think. And, yes, under current projections the system won't be able to meet 100% of obligations, because, as a pay-as-you-go system, there won't be enough workers contributing in 25 years to meet the retirees' obligations.

 

The main point is that UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, raising taxes today to create a bogus future fund to provide future benefits is BS because the government spends SS taxes today like general revenue--you know that DC.

 

Something will have to change, yes. But don't give us the same BS that you (3rd person) sold people on in the 1980s. Either change the system so what I contribute is mine, or make it a true needs-based program, thus trimming benefits.

[Magox]

There is no way around it, the only sustainable solution is to either milk those filthy rich for more funds or to cut benefits. Most likely it will be a mixture of the two. Until then, we'll just settle for TPS's solution of kicking the can down the old proverbial road which of course heightens the pain once we do decide to seriously address the issue.