Proposed budget via NY times

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The most useful thing about that chart, for people who don't understand much about government spending, is that it makes it visually clear that our largest areas of spending are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Social Security is required by law to be fully funded; it's illegal for it to borrow money, so it doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt and never has. The surplus it has run and invested in Treasury Bonds will keep it solvent for several more decades (regardless of what the media would like you to believe; Social Security is fine).

We don't have any choice about interest on the national debt.

Medicare and Medicaid are non-discretionary items.

What this means, is that all of these cuts in discretionary spending don't amount to a hill of beans. Any alleged budget hawk who talks a big game about cutting the deficit and does not discuss cutting the defense budget is not actually serious about cutting spending.

If you really want to slash the deficit, you need to slash defense.

How does keeping SS Solvent for 2.5 more decades make it "fine".

IMO that makes it terrible.

seriously, 2037 is right around the damn corner. Unless you are old and only care about yourself and not the future, nobody has a reason to think it is fine.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

How does keeping SS Solvent for 2.5 more decades make it "fine".

IMO that makes it terrible.

seriously, 2037 is right around the damn corner. Unless you are old and only care about yourself and not the future, nobody has a reason to think it is fine.

According to "some" people, the government can just tweak it and make it alright. Tweak meaning raise the % rate or the amount on which people have to pay, increase the retirement age to 75 or 80. Yup, you younger generation has absolutely nothing to worry about. Just keep paying into the Ponzi scheme.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

According to "some" people, the government can just tweak it and make it alright. Tweak meaning raise the % rate or the amount on which people have to pay, increase the retirement age to 75 or 80. Yup, you younger generation has absolutely nothing to worry about. Just keep paying into the Ponzi scheme.

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

While all proposals put a dent in the shortfall, completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close. The nature of Social Security as a social insurance, rather than welfare, program suggests that the latter proposal may be more palatable, as it retains the connection between what wage-earners pay into Social Security and what they get out of it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...s_could_r.html

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up. Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Some is some reading reading for you:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up.

What are you talking about? Private retirees or Medicare recipients?

Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Then don't bother to ask my opinion if you are sure you can read my mind. Buh bye.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

What are you talking about? Private retirees or Medicare recipients?


Then don't bother to ask my opinion if you are sure you can read my mind. Buh bye.

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

That's why I asked, because you didn't say anything about anything. DUH.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Military retirees who are of the working class age. Did I say anything about Medicare DUH.

anyone not of ss age, but retired-raise it. after all, someone with 20 years in could be all of 38 years old...
they need to raise the length of service to qualify for retirement from the military.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up. Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Some is some reading reading for you:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

I'm not against charging more for their Insurance. Mine just doubled. No B.S. Doubled. I can't afford to keep paying for everyone else's sh1t I have another $500 oil bill this month. Wouldn't it be fair if you people living in the sunny south were gonna start kicking up for that? I want my Global Warming!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I'm not against charging more for their Insurance. Mine just doubled. No B.S. Doubled. I can't afford to keep paying for everyone else's sh1t I have another $500 oil bill this month. Wouldn't it be fair if you people living in the sunny south were gonna start kicking up for that? I want my Global Warming!

I feel sorry for you about your rate doubling. Was there a legit reason given to you as to why it doubled?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I feel sorry for you about your rate doubling. Was there a legit reason given to you as to why it doubled?

OBAMACARE!!

[dellinger63]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752635] sickening

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

Look at how the full retirement age has risen 2 years and % amounts of SS paid out prior to 67 have diminished -

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

You really think that in 30 or 40 years, the full SS benefit retirement age will not have risen to 70, 72, maybe even 75 years of age? It's the only way SS will survive - gotta make sure some of those old timers die off before they can collect.

One of the most unfair benefits in the SS program is allowing a spouse who never worked a day in her life to collect 50% of her husband's social security when both he and she reach maximum retirement age. I have a friend whose husband was a bank executive making a huge salary. She is collecting half of his SS and it amounts to more than what I collect - my having worked 40 years putting into the system. That's one of the entitlements in the SS program that can be done away with or drastically reduced.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

That's what the math says - better if the cap removed entirely, as the article says, because that makes a surplus so benefits can go up. Imagine that. Solvent SS for decade after decade, and better benefits for all.

The Dems are all for that, it's the GOP that doesn't want to do it. That is why I am tired of banging my head against the stubborn silliness of the GOP.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

Look at how the full retirement age has risen 2 years and % amounts of SS paid out prior to 67 have diminished -

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

You really think that in 30 or 40 years, the full SS benefit retirement age will not have risen to 70, 72, maybe even 75 years of age? It's the only way SS will survive - gotta make sure some of those old timers die off before they can collect.

One of the most unfair benefits in the SS program is allowing a spouse who never worked a day in her life to collect 50% of her husband's social security when both he and she reach maximum retirement age. I have a friend whose husband was a bank executive making a huge salary. She is collecting half of his SS and it amounts to more than what I collect - my having worked 40 years putting into the system. That's one of the entitlements in the SS program that can be done away with or drastically reduced.

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

If I was in that category, I'd still collect my SS benefit and donate it to a worthy person/cause of my choice. That would give me much more satisfaction that letting the government keep it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

If I was in that category, I'd still collect my SS benefit and donate it to a worthy person/cause of my choice. That would give me much more satisfaction that letting the government keep it.

that is a better idea! but how many wealthy people would actually do that?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

I think that's a kind of forced charity, rather than reaping the just rewards of the insurance you've paid into your whole life.

Why should someone be punished for being successful? SS isn't a handout, it's insurance.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I personally think that if someone has a huge amount of wealth when they retire, they should opt out of recieving SS. It is unneeded if you have millions in the bank.

I completely agree. I think there should be restrictions and that SS recipients should have to prove need/eligibility. At this rate, it will come to that anyway and if we start it NOW we can actually use that money to help fix our current crisis.