The situation is hopeless. For many decades, due to FED's easy money policy, Americans have borrowed and spent. This inflated the money supply, prices and salaries (inflation). But now borrowing has stopped. We ran out of borrowers. People are getting old. Boomers will retire. This is deflationary. With a deflating money supply it is not possible to pay the same salaries in the economy. For example, with money supply of 50 trillion, if avarage salary is 50K USD, when the money supply falls to 40trillion, average salary will have to fall to 40K. Or money will be printed and purchasing value will reflect it. Even though you get a pay check, it won't buy anything. This is the reason why we have unemployment. State and local governments are going bust. Their programs, pension plans were built based on an assumption of inflated money supply. When deflation hits, states, local governments have to cut back spending drastically, or declare bankcruptcy. Google for "financial mania continues" to understand the debt bubble we have. Social security cannot be sustained in this environment. Cut backs will be required.

Yes, the trust fund was borrowed to pay for tax cuts. No one's arm was twisted to accept those tax cuts - people could have voluntarily continued paying taxes at the higher rates.

Interesting that allowing the tax cuts to expire would generate enough revenue to 'cash in' those Treasury bonds.

If employment picks back up and we get some of those millions of unemployed back to work, the trust fund coffers will fill up again.

Well, they used an example of a 40yr old worker who would retire in 2039. Dang, I am 40 this year, that blows. I hope they get it back on its feet, and they have enough funds to pay until about 2059, that way I can get a good 20 yrs of fun out of it.

Sorry but you guys missed the boat here.

Social Security is going broke because Congress is always borrowing from it period. We also have about 25 million workers unemployed at this time. That means 25 million people are not paying into it . Answer is simple . End free trade and bring our jobs back home and get congresses hands out of the cookie jar. 25 million more people putting money into the pot, equals a ton more money going into the fund . Problem solved.

bob

@georgecons -- No, the situation for Social Security is not hopeless. The article is saying that Social Security is still quite sound. Even the worst case scenario presented in the article only shows a 25 pct reduction in benefits - but - Social Security will still be able to pay benefits.

The worse case scenario is that an $1,800 per month benefit is reduced to $1,350 per month. People under 40 do not need to 'save' to replace full Social Security benefits - they only need to 'save' to provide $500 per month.

If inflation is brought under control then that amount of replacement 'saving' will be less.

So, why the hell are we getting a 2% tax cut on SS when it needs every penney it can get???

Nerm

I beg to differ.

Congress is the biggest thief from social security. They constantly borrow from it and never repay it . The only way to put a solid floor under it, is to put all of our unemployed back to work full time and get congresses thieving hands out of it .

bob

Increasing the retirement age, restructuring the way revenues from other assets are counted as income, and raising the maximum amount of income taxed by Social Security and Medicare would probably be enough to set things straight. Problem is, people like AARP are using scare tactics to fight these measures and of course, people neither want to pay more or get less no matter what their means.

If congress would keep their hands out of the till and the Pentagon would pay back the money "they borrowed" there wouldn't be these problems. The money was never invested properly as was promised when the system was started and with the government using it as a slush fund for all their special projects we wouldn't be in the problem we're in. Remember SSI means Social Security Insurance.

And the people that caused this problem will mostly be dead and have spent our money.

No, the situation for Social Security is not hopeless. The article is saying that Social Security is still quite sound. Even the worst case scenario presented in the article only shows a 25 pct reduction in benefits - but - Social Security will still be able to pay benefits.

The worse case scenario is that an $1,800 per month benefit is reduced to $1,350 per month. People under 40 do not need to 'save' to replace full Social Security benefits - they only need to 'save' to provide $500 per month.

Nerm, seriously the 40 and under crowd have had to pay more into social security and will get less out of it at a later time, and you say it isn't broken. Even if inflation were to stay at 2% that money will amount to almost nothing when it time for us under 40 to retire. I believe Bush tried to reach a compromise to fix social security and Democrats wouldn't go for the small privatization portion of the bill and rejected his plan. Maybe the Democrats were just being obstructionist, and playing politics with these real issues. Right?

If inflation is brought under control then that amount of replacement 'saving' will be less.

OK..........so do I slap Peter or Paul or maybe the Left hand or the Right hand.

BobI/28: You are absolutely right. Tell that to the young Misinformed people. They believe this Garbage that the government is trying sell them that they would be better off putting their money in stocks. You might do good right up until the time you are ready to retire and then BAM, Stock Market Crashes and you are left holding an EMPTY Bag of nothing. It happened to me. Social Security is your best bet no matter what some of these smart Ass'es try to tell you. At least you will have something every month. What will you have the other way?? A Park bench and a cardboard box. Wake up.

Two words. Means testing.

I have buddy who has reached full retirement age at 62. He is still working and drawing his full SS benefit. Part of which is $300 a month each for two children under 18. He's probably knocking down 30-40k a year in SS plus his full wage as an attorney.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be paid for what he's put in but it's this double/triple dipping that is hurting SS the most. It wasn't meant to be a second or third salary, or a living wage for the disabled/widows etc. It was intended to be a safety net to back up other income sources, period.

There is only so much blood you can squeeze from a turnip.

Nerm_L,

Worse case scenario sounds pretty bad to me. How do you expect someone living on a fixed income to loose $450 a month in income? I know for a fact my mother would not be able to afford her monthly expenses. That burden would likely fall on me further reducing the disposable income I do not have. I guess there goes the kids prepaid college fund...

The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion,”

This is NOT a "benefit" -this is money that was taken out of people paychecks for decades, money that they earned, employers paid, and were forced to put aside.

Congress has been looting it for years to pay for the crap they want to subsidize. As soon as the total dropped to an unsustainable level for future payouts, the whole thing became a scam, a ponzi scheme run by Congress.

Giving a Congressman access to money is like giving a meth head 100 pounds of crystal- they will blow through that, and just want more. This is disgusting. The young people of today are going to be screwed.

I can see the libs/peace freaks screaming "cut the military budget!" : $480 Billion - you can do that as soon as you cut the DHS budget - $4 TRILLION.

"The Republican't House would vote to re-pay the trillions and trillions and multiple Trillions of dollars that the Republican't congress of 1994-2006 stole from the Social Security Trust"

"Pentagon would pay back the money "they borrowed"

Seriously? who funds the pentagon, oh wait thats us, who funds the House, oh wait that again is us.

"The redemption of those bonds can only occur out of current income," explained Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad last year. "The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion," he said.

Great, just great. Thanks, ALL Congressional representatives for spending the money I paid into Social Security taxes for 50 or so years.

Notable quote for our "elite" Congressional representatives and those folks who thinks Mr. Obama has a "stash":

• "The Government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking money from someone else to pay for it."

Thanks so much all you trust worthy POS politicians for STEALING money that was never supposed to be used for all your pet projects. Being with LBJ and continuing to the current crop of thieves, the pirates have plundered the money paid by hard working people with no intention of paying it back. Party notwithstanding, they are all liars, thieves and scoundrels. Hang them ALL. I wonder how much ended up in their pockets. They've stolen for every other source of income, including "insider trading" which even Obama called for an end to in his state of the union speech.

Jon-998022 - "He is still working and drawing his full SS benefit"

Not possible, he may be drawing but not his full amount, and he is paying taxes on those benefits unless he is making under 30K or so (or whatever it is for a family)

So your are lying or completely misinformed.

Tarzan7

Thank You !!

You and I are on the same page . The stock market is nothing but a giant PONZI SCHEME , period. Set up by the 1%ers for the 1%ers . There is no way in hell the average person can win let alone break even.

bob

@bob1/28 -- Are you trying to advocate that loans should not be repaid? Student loans, mortgages, credit card debt should just be defaulted - not repaid?'

The OADSI Trust owns promissory notes - Treasury bonds. If the government defaults on Treasury bonds - the future health of Social Security will be among the least of our problems.

Magnum,

Dems were in charge of congress during some of those years. They're all as crooked as a leg with polio. Don't let em brainwash you. Think for yourself.

Tom...finally, someone got it right. Congress owes millions tot eh Social Security fund..both parties have used that money when...they were not suppose too. As always. our elected are not worthy of our trust nor our votes. What each of them say and do ..do not match up. If..as the republicans want to do...we cut huge amounts of funds from Social security benefits..and medicare or medicaid, or any of the other so called benefits that our elected take form our checks each week.. If these benefits are to be cut..will the corresponding take from our checks also be cut ? Or is this just cuts for the wealthy.?

I've been paying into social security since 1969. So all of the sudden, they don't have enough money? I agree with the comment stating that the government has borrowed(stolen) from this fund to make ends meet on their end. How about they give us all of the money we have invested into SS back so that we can more wisely invest it?

The best way to help Social Security to survive is to make it the retirement system for our politicians in Washington. I can guarantee they would have the problem fixed in a matter of hours.

TOOOO MUCHHH FRAUDDD.... There should be a 3 doctor panel to examine qualification for disability benefits. It is just too easy these days to get on disability. I know of one that was in a motorcycle class with me here in Texas that was on disability, but said his doctor said that riding a Harley would be good therapy... Ha, HA, Haaa

When I read stories like this, it seems to be just another example of some sort of "fraudulent" activity in the government, or allowed by the government. If a private company started using its retirement fund to do things outside of taking care of current and future retirees, I think they get in trouble don't they? This really isn't very different is it? The government has taken money out of my paycheck since I've been working telling me that I will receive a certain amount back upon retirement. Now I'm reading the money is going to be gone ... Who get's held responsible? What can each of us do about this? I'm frankly getting a little irritated with government officials and CEO's at companies getting away with fat retirements, while the "working class" get told no money left ... I wonder where it is all going (into these folk's pockets)?

Tom,

You are the misinformed one but this is the internet so who really cares what you or i think. But take it to the bank, he is doing it.

@Jimmy on the Beach -- My point is that, under the worst case scenario, someone that is 40 does not need to 'save' enough to replace $1,800 a month - they only need to 'save' enough to replace $500 a month. The fear mongering that Social Security 'will not be there' is only to get you to throw more money into 'savings' (which usually translates to risky, unsecured investing) than you need to for the real worse case scenario.

I know a bunch of 'investment advisers' that would love to scare you into tripling your 'saving'. They make money that way.

I am so tired of seeing the funds misused. When my ex-husband died, we had 2 kids, he had been remarried to a woman who had a child by someone else, got child support from the father of that child. They had been married 9 months when he died. She got 1/3 of the social security since they had been married 9 months, what is wrong with this picture. They told me I could quit my job and collect also. I told them in 10 years I would not be able to get a job, so no thank you. My current boyfriend of 13 yrs has a son that fried his brains on drugs, he gets Social security,he worked maybe 6 months of his life, does not have to work at all, is able to work part time. He has been given an apartment, has healthcare thru medicare and medicaid, since the age of 21. They gave him a phone and cell phone. I worked all my life, became disabled, a real disability not a pretend one, and had to fight for 5 years at the age of 55 and working since I was 12. The Russians people can get 3% house loans, sell 4 houses a year with no penalty, get food stamps, and were not citizens. They recently became citizens and got city and county jobs. My daughter has a step-daughter, who's mother is a welfare bum all her life off and on, more on like her mother. She uses drugs, she had a child with autistism, a mild case, and got social security for him. The daughter that my daughter has custody of has been burned by one of her boyfriends, sexually abused by another, she pays no child support and has rights to see her. She had a stomach band put on, when she had a job and they paid for it, she has been in and out of the hospital with problems related to her surgery and drug abuse, she is applying for social security disability and most likely will get it after working maybe 2 years of her life. My ex's uncle claimed back injury falsely when he was 30, got disability all his life. PEOPLE WAKE UP. This is misuse and abuse of the system. Take all the druggies put them on an empty base, ,make the work daily for food, and if they want help they can get it, if not, let them have the drugs, and let them die. My neighbors adopted 2 children from a meth mom, she had 3 kids, someone else has the other one, she has been through 4 treatment programs, was getting $300 a month for the last baby, she got it taken away, and even though they adopted this child they get $300 a month now. I am so tired of the druggies, the lame getting benefits we worked for, if you did not pay in, you don't get. If you collect and are able to work, you must. Welfare people, work at a state run daycare so the others can work, you must do something for your money. You must use norplant and not have anymore kids until you can support them. Go back to orphanages so the children can be with brothers and sisters and have a stable place. Welfare people can work there, and/or disabled people could help out, be with the kids. A lot of foster parents are in it for the money.

Tom,

I hate to tell you this genius, but it IS possible to be drawing full Social Security benefits and still be working. It is what happens when an individual keeps working well into old age. My father did not retire until he was 83 years old. Now granted, because of his income level, 85% of his Social Security benefits were taxable and they were taxed.

After his death, a Social Security agent told me his benefits were the highest he could ever remember seeing. It was because he was always putting some back, even when he was drawing.

So calling another liar when YOU are misinformed merely shows your arrogance.

And the Fed is thinking about taxing our 401's....BS

georgecons -- Some of your points I agree with, and others I do not. The idea that all we need is a "cut-back" silver bullet is absurd (as the 1% who would benefit would snooker you into believing).

First we need to increase good-paying jobs so that more money is collected. This should start with raising the minimum wage to a living wage nation-wide. Most companies are sitting on piles of cash, so the claim this will cause business to fold is BS.

Second, we need to increase the current cap on FICA with-holdings from incomes of 106K up to 500K. Then we need to means test so that those earning more than 500K are not eligible to collect the same as those who paid into the system on all their earnings.

Third we need to amend the constitution to prevent congress from dipping in the trust fund till. PAYGO needs to be required for everything except emergencies (which includes the Great Recession).

Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare, and Romney and other plutocrats who want your retirement controlled by Wall Street are anti-American, seriously. Americans have already lost ability to save via bank accounts because banks no longer pay interest worth bothering. Americans have already lost retirement to Wall Street when their 401ks were wiped out. Americans have already lost with home equity destroyed by Wall Street as well.

Safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare (the social contract) are all that Americans have left. Fight for it, and fight hard! Don't listen to the lies from those who would benefit from ending these programs rather than strengthen these -- especially when these could be strengthened so easily.

TO those who were refering that LBJ was the first politician to dip in to SS funds... You are 100% correct. These douchebags in DC have been looting the SS fund for years. Jimmy Carter passed a law that allows immigrants that have only worked 10 years to be able to receive SS upon retirement. Lots of illegals have figured out how to get SSI also. There are so many leaches on the payroll...it's is disgusting. Let ME take my SS money and at least put in a bank account. I'm paying into a fund that I will NEVER see! If I do somehow manageto see it, it will be at a reduced %. Most llikely they will bump the minimum SS age to 79. What a crock...

Term limits... our only hope of salvaging what's left of this country.

Oh that's coming if Obama and the Dems have there way Gabriel. It's on their radar big time. Obama gets another four years and i predict to you it will happen. Especially if the Dems get a majority of both houses.

Jon: Your "buddy" couldn't be receiving his FULL Social Security benefit without SSA taking a portion of it due to his still working. I've checked into this myself....if I start collecting my Social Security now (at age 66 or age 67), and IF I continue to work....the Social Security Admin will take a certain percentage per dollar that I make. If I wait and retire at age 70, I can work full time AND get my full Social Security benefit. You might want him to clarify that for you....I can guarantee you that he's not getting his FULL benefit and that the SSA is taking a certain portion out of it because he's still working a full-time job.

Very well said, Ritdog! Complete agreement.

I am sure that there are some very responsible, honest people out there in the good ole' USA that could put the government POS(s) to shame with getting things straightened out, without demanding lifetime insurance, security, high salaries paid for no services, etc. I just wish they'd stand up and run for the office(s). Little Timmy Geitner should be ashamed of himself, along with the trustees on the accounts discussed in the article. B**tch Pelosi should be ashamed -- millions personally, and still demanding high wage for -- for -- what? These two pretty much in the public eye are just an example of what they are ALL doing on the hill. The American People are being taken to the cleaners by these corrupt officials and I include the president in that mess. It's been going on for ages, without term limits, these ingrates have built their empires, so to speak, and its time the American People who pay for all this frivolitry chop off the hands of the thieves in charge.

STOP the PRESSES, I've got a solution!

One guy in the article said "Social Security will be facing an increasing mismatch between taxes being paid in and benefits being paid out"

WAIT, there's a giant mismatch right now! For 30 years the trust fund has been increasing in value, OVERCOLLECTING and lending that money to the GENERAL FUND.

How about when 2033 rolls around, we let the GENERAL FUND loan some money back to Social Security for the next 50 years!

That way we could get through the HUMP of the Boomers and all will be well! No need to do ANYTHING, except to SAY it's OK for the General Fund to loan to SS.

DONE!

MrQueue4Thoughts

How about they give us all of the money we have invested into SS back so that we can more wisely invest it?

No, that isn't what was promised. You could never have guaranteed retirement in the amount of SS without it being a pooled system like SS. One problem is more people are "making claims" so to speak in that people are living longer, but in poorer health. We need health care reforms right along with entitlement reforms in order to be properly prepared.

Otherwise the only option will be the ones we've already seen, with the elderly dying because their heat was turned off, because they had to choose between the heating bill and cat food to eat. So many programs were started to solve a social problem like this, lest we as a society forget.

We are MUCH better off having programs that people pay into then leaving them to their own ignorant devises (yes, they need a nanny) and the less fortunate dumpster diving and dying on the streets, or have a welfare system that is not funded.

What we need is a congress that will get to work on the problem instead of obstructing and playing politics for their own job security. We can start with throwing the Teapublican "eat the seed corn" anarchists out.

Jon-998022:
"Two words. Means testing. I have buddy who has reached full retirement age at 62. He is still working and drawing his full SS benefit. "

I have a word for you Jon, bull$hit. No one reaches FRA at 62.

TEXPAL... you're full of it. I've been waiting almost 2 years to get approved for SS disability. I've got a progressive, terminal disease yet have been turned down over and over. I was a registered nurse who'd give my right arm to be able to go back to work. I live every single day in pain that would kill a horse. I have a handful of docs who all say I cannot work and won't ever be able to work again. All of that info has been submitted AND I have a company who's supposed to be helping me. Yet I am STILL waiting! So if you think it's easy to get, you've obviously never been disabled and trying to get disability.

Whether you agree with it or not, only the Republicans have been offering changes to entitlements to save them. All the Democrats have been doing is using the Republican effort against them for political gains. This time next year the outlook for Social Security will be even gloomier, and its insolvency date will be moved up another couple years from this current prediction.

This country is flat out spending too much money, running up too much debt, and this country is going to see a financial collapse long before 2033 rolls around. The path this country is on leaves no hope of it EVER meeting its current or promised financial obligations. Those that believe otherwise are the same people that have been listening to members of Congress demonize the efforts to save Social Security because it is just fine.

Fannie and Freddie went belly up less then two years after Barney Frank and Chris Dodd declared them to be solid. Do you really believe members of Congress like Frank and Dodd who have the best pensions and benefits taxpayers can buy really care what happens to you? They will play politics with this issue, and when you get screwed, it will be your fault for trusting them. There is no effort in Washington to get our financial house in order, so the writing is already on the wall. Its not if, but when it will collapse.

Politicians should get no special perks or benefits for serving the country. They should be in the same retirement plan just like everyone else, and if they were Social Security would not be in the condition it is today. But since politicians work for themselves first and the American people last, that is certainly never going to happen. When you keep electing the same people over and over but expecting different results, then you are a complete idiot.

Rick-3416939

Whether you agree with it or not, only the Republicans have been offering changes to entitlements to save them.

Stop with it -- No they are NOT. Since when is ending programs as we know it "saving" these programs? Please read my post #1.40 above with real solutions suggested.

"I hate to tell you this genius, but it IS possible to be drawing full Social Security benefits and still be working."

and to Jon

First I didn't say you couldn't draw full SS when you are working, You can and my mom is doing it, She is 72 and draws her FULL SS because she waited until she was 70 to collect her FULL SS.

You can most definately can start drawing at 62 but you DO NOT get your full SS. So Jim before you start calling others names try to do some research on your own.

He is the site:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

MIke-680333

Jimmy Carter passed a law that allows immigrants that have only worked 10 years to be able to receive SS upon retirement. Lots of illegals have figured out how to get SSI...

Prove what you posted about President Carter. The only way illegals can collect any assistance is if they are using a fraudulent SS number. If you want to get your knickers in a wad over requiring eVerify (as President Obama wants) to prevent ID theft then you'll have my attention.

@Texpal: you don't know what you're talking about unless you've ever tried to get disability yourself. I haven't been able to work since 2008 after 2 failed back surgeries and then getting rear-ended in a 4 car collision causing an addition 6 herniated discs-3 in my neck, 2 in my upper back and one above my fusion. I walk with a walker, fall frequently due to numbness and weakness in my legs, and it took me over 3 years and the opinions of 3 different doctors to finally get my disability approved last week. I've been paying into this system since I was 16 years old, and started working at my parents golf course when I was 12. Now they're saying that I may only have 4 years of being able to collect disability before they run out? I belong to a support group for those with back problems who have also waited years, despite having TONS of documentation from groups of doctors saying that they can no longer work, but it doesn't matter.

And for Nerm_L-I'm glad you're so rich, but for those of us who live from paycheck to paycheck, there's a lot of difference between $1800 a month and $1350 a month. When we don't have gas money at the end of the month, how in the He** do you expect us to "save" all that money. I didn't ask to be injured-I was working as an ER nurse helping a$$holes like you. I spent months in a wheelchair and lying flat on my back, so don't try to tell me I don't deserve to be paid all the money I paid in just because our government is too busy sticking their noses (and their wallets) into every other country's business to be able to help out our own poor, starving, and disabled. I've never requested Medicaid or Food Stamps, but I paid into Social Security and there's no reason why I shouldn't get it back.

How about they give us all of the money we have invested into SS back so that we can more wisely invest it?
You are misinformed about how the Social Security system works. The money you pay into it today goes directly to retirees. There isn't some SS vault with your name on it and your money in it. When you retire the money you will be receiving is from workers paying into the system and not the money you personally paid into it.

This, right here, is the poster child for not letting the federal government take control of your health care. They will f... it up beyond all belief. And all under the guise of protecting us, helping us.

It is a REALLY bad idea to put any one group or government in control of your life.

So Satanick you are admitting it is a ponzi scheme?

So Satanick you are admitting it is a ponzi scheme?
No because SS is not masqueraded as an investment. People just erroneously think that the money they put into the program gets invested because they are uninformed. Plus a ponzi scheme promises high rates of return on your investment. SS does not. So comparing SS to ponzi scheme is unfair.

People put very little in and expect a huge rate of return so that argument doesn't hold water. The most you can put in is around 7K a year and you are expecting to get that every every few months.

(FYI - ponzi scheme don't always promise a high rate of return, just a rate of return)

Nearly half of the national debt (basically the accumulation of all the prior federal deficits) were created by the Republicans in Congress. They approved wars, military spending, tax cuts and new benefits that were never paid for. Their deficit spending is what forced the general fund to borrow from the Social Security fund.

If that money had been used wisely to improve our health, education, R&D, infrastructure or initiate innovative industries, this would not be a problem because it would have allowed the economy to have grown much larger and the return from those investments would have paid back the loans. But they didn't.

The reality is that the money was misspent on grand delusions of empire building and tax cuts for a tiny minority at the top so they could live like kings.

This article clearly points out that democrats do not think anything is structurally wrong with our entitlements that a bit of tweaking can't fix. So if you subscribe to this same thinking, vote with them and cross your fingers and toes that they are right.

Just some perspective.

The average retiree gets 1100.00/mo. The majority of retirees live on this amount with some small savings, or a small pension plan. Wells Fargo did a survey about a 1 year ago asking members how much they had saved for retirement. The answer was 10,000. So do the math there as well. BTW, a majority of retirees or those getting close still have a mortgage. 1 in 4 kids up to the age of 30 and above are still living at home. If they pay rent that helps the parents stay in their home I suppose.

Half of all graduates from college are not underemployed or not at all and thus they are getting a very late start in life helping to pay for current retirees.

That is the point. The money paid into the system each month by those working is the money used to pay out these benefits. When you read about the SS fund having 2.7 T that is essentially an IOU. If the US government stays solvent then that IOU is sound. If not, that IOU isn't worth anything.

The current administration owns the executive branch, and the senate. Republicans are still the minority party that can't get a darn thing passed without the senate. So the blame falls entirely with the dems. If the republicans were the majority it would lie squarely with them. The dems owned the house and senate after the 2006 elections and so they presided over the worst recession since the depression. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. The ball is in their court but this president doesn't even feel obliged to have a budget let alone make any attempt to balance the budget going forward.

Again, if you think he is responsible and doing a great job driving us off the cliff, vote for him, but if you are young or middle aged, do not complain when the house of cards falls on you.

"The reality is that the money was misspent on grand delusions of empire building and tax cuts for a tiny minority at the top so they could live like kings."

Actually Larry we all got tax cuts and most of us got higher percentage cuts than the rich, but don't let things like facts get in the way.

TruePatriot, are you on the pay role of the Odumo White House? On at least 3 separate occasions republicans have made good faith attempts to rescue Social Security, only to be lambasted and vilified in the most vile means possible. I suppose technically you are right True, the republicans would end the program "as we know it", and for damn good reason, your beloved program "as we know it" cannot sustain itself. No matter what is done, it is the end of the program "as we know it", Thank God for that. But knowing the democrats aversion to anything that would be truly bipartisan, nothing will happen again, and again, and again, till they system is flat broke, then they'll do what they always do, blame the republicans.

People put very little in and expect a huge rate of return so that argument doesn't hold water. The most you can put in is around 7K a year and you are expecting to get that every every few months.
You are still talking as if Social Security is an investment. It is not! You are not investing your money; therefore it is not a ponzi scheme.

Larry, who has been the majority party in congress for the past ten years?

Um..Democrats. So don't be blaming the republicans and Bush. It's your socialized party that is screwing us all.

If we would quit giving free money and benefits to illegals who have NEVER paid in one dime, we would not have any money problems. Plus if they weren't guaranteed all the wonderful freebies, they would stay in their home country.

Nerm you make me laugh. The IOU's started in 1969 to pay for the great Society. It was to hide all the deficits. The wars and military are NOTHING compared to all the entitlements that have been created and underfunded.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

Obama chose to reduce payroll taxes since mid-2011...that directly diminishes the amount of money being put into what's left of the Social Security coffers.

Of course a reduction in input into the fund means depletion earlier (here reported as three years earlier).

Obama's the cause of this bad news. He could have cut taxes on gas, income taxes or any other far-penetrating tax across the nation's economy. NO, HE CHOSE TO CUT OFF the very monies that is keeping the already decrepid Social Security account afloat!

Moron.

Get this bufoon out of DC!

They need to do away with the SS cap that sits at $125,000. As it stands, if you make $4 mill a year, you pay the same as someone making $125,000 into SS. We need to have a flat SS fee along with a flat tax.

@ JonSmith -

Maybe because those that make over $125,000 will never need SS. Get a clue, guy.

Wow! Talk about twisting the facts. You have a great talent there.

Well, all you folks can whine all you want about Social Security - and - wait for the eventual collapse. I'll be dead and gone when it happens - no worries for me. I have tried to point out the worse case scenario for someone younger than 40 years old - but - everyone chooses to ignore the the fact that, according to the OASDI trustees, the absolute end-of-the-world scenario is that you only need to be saving enough to provide $500 a month to replace reduced SoSec benefits. If you are older than 40 years of age - your backside is already covered.

You want to talk to REAL worse case scenarios? At present there are $17 trillion of retirement assets invested in the financial markets. $5 trillion of that is in IRAs and 401k plans - the rest are pension funds that provide defined benefits - just as SoSec does. That $17 trillion is about 20 pct of our nation's money supply. That is roughly one third of all the money invested on Wall Street.

One out of every two current workers will be eligible to retire over the next 20 years. On average, 10,000 people will be eligible to retire each day, every day, seven days a week, for the next 20 years. On average, 300,000 people will be eligible to retire each month for the next 20 years. 80 million people will be switching from wages that adjust with inflation to defined benefits that erode with inflation. Any shortfall in SoSec means those people will be depending on retirement assets invested on Wall Street. That means there will be more sellers than buyers - what happens to Wall Street when there are more sellers than buyers?

People have not been 'investing' on Wall Street - they have been saving for retirement. Cutting Social Security benefits will only increase pressure to sell - sell - sell on Wall Street.

Wall Street is facing the same problem that Social Security is facing - more withdrawals than deposits. All the fear mongering about Social Security - which is still secure - is an attempt to save Wall Street. That is the REAL ponzi scheme ...

My, the ignorance of many is astounding. Social Security is in trouble because of the massive debt. Too many IOU's that can never be repaid plus, as many noted, there are many drones out there collecting while those in need go empty-handed. The welfare frauds and cheats always manage to get their hands on the money while the truly needy are left out in the cold. This is so wrong on so many levels.

Interesting that the article quotes Trumka and Pelosi, both socialist/progressives, who are insane enough to state that SS is doing great????? Really? Of course, they aren't the brightest knives in the drawer, all they know is to push the 'entitlement' agenda, gimme programs and completely ignore how most working folks are going broke attempting to support the welfare drones and leeches in the government, on the welfare rolls and unions (union bosses.)

The gravy train is running out of gravy and the numbers they predict are way off of the reality. Then Obama, in his infinite and eternal program of buying votes, pushes to reduce the payroll tax, the tax that funds SS. I am convinced his supporters are either braindead or else sucking mightily on the government teat. As to tying into Wall Street, yup on many accounts, however, had the money been left rather than used as slush fund, there wouldn't be this discussion. Note as well, what is slated to happen in 2016, four years from now, with Medicare and Medicaid (no mention of Obamacare, it is funded by the same means and with massive taxes and fees added on.)

Let's review. Reagan/Bush revised social security in 1983 with much kicking and screaming from the right and the left ( RAISED TAXES AND RETIREMENT AGE).

Clinton did nothing.

George W tried but was shouted down by democrats that said "there is no social security problem".

Obama has done nothing.

It takes courage and political capital to fix something as big as SSI. Reagan had both. George W had courage, but alas, not the political capital. Clinton had no courage. Obama had the political capital and both houses of congress. He has no courage and he wasted his first term with Obama care.

No one has a response to my solution?

The TRUST FUND has been lending to the GENERAL FUND for 30 years (50 by the time it goes "broke"). Why can't the GENERAL FUND lend to the TRUST FUND for the next 50 years?

Damn congressmen. Can't agree on a damn debt deal; can't agree on economic policy; can't even agree on funding highways and bridges. What a bunch of idiots.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are a few simple solutions to fix SS. No privatization, no handing over SS to Wall Street, none of that crap. It's simple; raise the payroll tax to 15%, adjust COLA, use progressive indexing, increase retirement age to 70, reinstate estate taxes to $3.5 million property, raise tax on benefits, and eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. That would give SS a surplus for an indefinite period; to be exact, it would cover over 200% of the expected shortfall, according to the CBO. Last thing is put SS on a lock box. Nobody takes anything or messes around with the system. Simple as that.

Second, we need to increase the current cap on FICA with-holdings from incomes of 106K up to 500K. Then we need to means test so that those earning more than 500K are not eligible to collect the same as those who paid into the system on all their earnings.

Third we need to amend the constitution to prevent congress from dipping in the trust fund till. PAYGO needs to be required for everything except emergencies (which includes the Great Recession).

Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare, and Romney and other plutocrats who want your retirement controlled by Wall Street are anti-American, seriously. Americans have already lost ability to save via bank accounts because banks no longer pay interest worth bothering. Americans have already lost retirement to Wall Street when their 401ks were wiped out. Americans have already lost with home equity destroyed by Wall Street as well.

Actually, True Patriot, raising the cap to $500k isn't being fair at all. It still makes the SS system regressive. I say raise the cap to 90% of all earnings; it will be a tax increase on the rich, but it's better than nothing.

The current administration owns the executive branch, and the senate. Republicans are still the minority party that can't get a darn thing passed without the senate. So the blame falls entirely with the dems. If the republicans were the majority it would lie squarely with them. The dems owned the house and senate after the 2006 elections and so they presided over the worst recession since the depression. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. The ball is in their court but this president doesn't even feel obliged to have a budget let alone make any attempt to balance the budget going forward.

Nowadays, having the executive branch and the Senate doesn't allow you to control things. You still need the House for passing. Plus with the GOP being all extremist and obstructionist (along with the Democrats, I'll agree to that), nothing gets passed. Contrary to what you right-wingers think, the recession was not caused by the Democrats, at least not those elected in 2006. It was actually caused by 30 years of expensive tax cuts that benefited the wealthy (note that they were for everyone, but even with them only the wages of the highest earners increased substantially), deregulation of the financial markets, and a lack of rising wages. I say raise the minimum wage to about $9; salaries need to go up one way or another, and the minimum wage is the only way to do it. And in case you haven't read the news, the president HAS passed budgets, but nobody votes for them. The Republicans are all against deficit spending unless they're doing it (at least the Democrats haven't voiced the deficit during Bush as much as the GOP is now), and the Dems are scared into voting against it to save their seats. Obama is frankly the better financier than the rest of the GOP policies, mainly because they make cuts to welfare programs WITHOUT raising revenues or even making moderate reforms to entitlements. All they want is cut this, cut that, and privatize this stuff. No tax increases (actually trillions in tax cuts), no defense cuts, nothing. Saying that the GOP is fiscally accountable is as oxymoronic as saying that the fox is an easy kill.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

SS REFORMED (NOT PRIVATIZED) SOON

How convenient.

No mention of Obama's program where workers make only half of the normal SS contributions for several years. NBC covering for Obama once again.

The so-called 'tax cut' that Obama put into place was just a reduction in employee contributions to their Social Security Trust Funds - but nobody told workers that it might reduce their benefits upon retirement.

Just another government 'scam' - using taxpayer money.

How's that "Change we can believe in" working for YOU?

@SmBusOwnerinNY -- What's the difference between 'lending' to the trust fund and redeeming the bonds?

Either way, general revenue will need to be increased to provide the money. The political whining is simply because the government needs more general revenue - more income taxes.

The Democrats are saying that Social Security is sound - the government will absolutely honor those bonds.

The Republicans are twisting every way they can to avoid redeeming the bonds - and - avoid the necessary tax increases. Before it is over - redeeming those bonds could be equivalent to cutting the discretionary budget by 10 to 20 pct each year - without reducing the current deficit.

The Republicans have finally starved the beast enough - there is nothing left but a skeleton.

"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Despite the repeated efforts of Republicans to privatize Social Security and end the Medicare guarantee, these vital initiatives remain strong. Today’s Trustees’ report affirms that Social Security and Medicare will continue to provide critical benefits to seniors and other Americans.”.................AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka said in a statement that the report “confirms that Social Security remains a vibrant, strong, and durable program….The Social Security surplus is large and growing. Despite lower than expected wage and economic growth and unexpected increases in the cost of living, Social Security will be able to pay full scheduled benefits at least until 2033 absent congressional action.” "

Are they for REAL???????????????????

Nancy proves she has no clue, and Trumka says "We don't have to worry until 2033, and I'll be retired by then with my UNION pension which actually has money in it, so I don't really care".

The problem is that the Social Security Trust Fund looks like that briefcase at the end of Dumb and Dumber where all that's left in the briefcase instead of cash is a huge pile of I.O.U.'s. It was ILLEGAL to borrow from the Trust Fund when it was created but Democrats just couldn't have a pile of money sitting around that they couldn't get their grubby little hands on so the changed the law so they could raid the fund and it's been nothing but I.O.U.'s ever since.

It's would be funny if it weren't so pathetic that Nancy Pelosi, upon being informed that Soc Sec will not be able to pay out benefits according to the laws that Congress created because it will be too broke to do so, says "See...everything's 'just fine' and working well". What a complete id!ot !

@ROY WILSON-336103 -- Not only are Nancy Pelosi and Richard Trumka REAL - they are right.

Hope you enjoyed your tax cuts - because - they are sooooo over ...

The original article titled:

Retirement fund to run dry earlier: trustees

"The deteriorating shape of Medicare and Social Security funds -- largely because of an aging U.S. population and rising healthcare costs -- highlights the need to overhaul the costly benefits programs and adds fire to the debate over how to rein in government spending."

(Reporting By Glenn Somerville, Rachelle Younglai, Donna Smith; Editing by Andrea Ricci, Bernard Orr)

Someone needs to grab these bozos by the ears and require them to do real journalism.

Our so called "Representatives" (US Congress) stole the money of the US Citizen Contributory Funds and Refuse to pay the money back and they keep screaming "Entitlements" when refering to these US Citizen Contributory Funds (money automatically deducted from everyone's paychecks, meaning you MUST work to earn a paycheck to know that, which you can deduce that many making uninformed comments do not know like georgecons, Nerm_L, Jennifer, New York, softdude, Magnum Serpentine).

Then there are the same Lobbyists bribing US Congress to get them to change Social Security, US Military Retirement, etc. so that they steal from these just like they stole from everyone's Retirement Plans (401Ks, IRAs, etc.).

The most ignorant being this, I budget myself to spend $1.2 Trillion including payments to other people (their income). Then President Obama comes along and demands that we buy something that will cost $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion as mostly payments to the Insurance Corporations($67 Billion), Medical Device Corporations ($23 Billion), PharmaceuticalsCorporations($20 Billion) as his "Health Care Reform Law" just so that he will get $1 Billion of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions from them (that US Supreme Court Ruling was NOT a coincidence, as President Obama'sBuddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court long before the Citizens United Case made it's way thru the US Court System Bureaucracy, as either Rule In Favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributionsor Rule the 2008-2009 Elections invalid for his admitted violations of US Law, McCain FeingoldBipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prior to and during the 2008-2009 Elections. Immediately after President Obama's Health Care Reform Act (aka ACA) became US Law, and the US Supreme Court Ruling, he recieved$1 Billion of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions (CBS News, PBS Documentary, BBC News)).

The Hypocrites that Rant against Corporations, yet as soon as Health Care, and Health Care Insurance CORPORATIONS are mentioned these Hypocrites attempt to defend these Greedy Health Care Insurance Corporations.

President Obama knew what the Cause of the Problems with Medicare (mentioned in the original Reuters article about Social Security and Medicare, Retirement fund to run dry earlier: trustees) is and refused to do anything about this, by getting the Insurance Corporations OUT of the Medical Profession:

Obama on 'Face the Nation', WASHINGTON, September 20, 2009

Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

Hint to those that do not work, President Obama's Fictional "Uncle Sam" is all US Citizens paying Taxes.

And to all those REALLY REALLY Uninformed that start with their "Obstructionist" baloney, IF President Obama really wanted to fix things, read this:

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals (Rivals being US Congress "The Will of the People").

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47138446/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

So by Executive Order President Obama (if he really wanted to help the Citizens of the United States of America) could:

1. Reinstate the Glass Steagall Acts (US Laws) to end the $60 Trillion to $100 Trillion "Global Economic Crisis" consisting of the "Mortgage Crisis", "Wall Street Crisis", "Financial Crisis", "Banking Crisis", "Credit Crisis", etc. (same Results of the 1929-1939 Great Depression, with the same Causes ending). This of course would piss off President Obama's Buddy "Mr. Corporate America".

2. Stop the US Government from Outsourcing the running of Medicare, US Military TriCare, etc. to the Insurance Corporations.

3. Reinstate President FDR's Universal Health Care for All US Citizens. Current price $50 for US Citizens to receive Unlimited Medical Treatments.

4. Eliminate the 35% Taxes that are chasing US Corporations out of the US (before any of you say No they do not pay, GET A CLUE:

American companies are finding new overseas tax havens to legally protect some of their profits from the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent, among the highest in the world.Lesley Stahl reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7376848n&tag=mncol;lst;1

As Local, City, State Budget have Budget Shortfalls from a decreasing Property Taxes due to Foreclosures, Unemployment, etc. they have added their Taxes on top of the 35% Taxes.

And President Obama's Lie:

The 12 highest corporate tax bills

http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/the-12-highest-corporate-tax-bills

5. Instead of a Reduction In Forces of the US Military, a suspension of the US Laws to allow on a limited basis (Restrictions) the US Military to: a. Secure the US Northern and US Southern Borders, as well as conduct Counter Insurgency Operations (Non Lethal Force unless absolutely justified "Fired upon First")., b. Conduct with the Full Support of All US Resources a larger scale version of President Eisenhower's successful Operation Wetback (All Illegal Aliens a known National Security Threat)., c. Absolutely NO US Taxpayer money used to Fund Illegal Aliens: 1). No Public Assistance in accordance with a Federal Version of California Proposition 187., 2). No US Taxpayer money used to Fund Illegal Alien Advocacy Groups at the US like La Raza (stated goal defeat of US States to form Aztlan)., 3). No US Taxpayer money used for the Education, Health Care of Illegal Aliens., 4). No US Taxpayer money used for the imprisonment of Illegal Aliens that committed Violent Crimes, instead they are deported to the Country of their Origin for their Taxpayers to pay for their Imprisonment (Violations of their Own Nations' Laws) of these Loyal Citizens of their own Nation as Illegal Aliens at the US. Those Illegal Aliens that committed Violent Crimes like Terrorism will be sent to US Ally locations external to the US (cheaper than US Imprisonment).

President Obama's saying Great Job US Military (paid below minimum wage doing the "Will of the People" as demanded by US Congress elected by US Citizens) and sticking them (1% of US Citizens currently Serving 92% of US Citizens that Refuse to Serve) in the back:

This is how he also like I mentioned before added to the US Unemployment with the current Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military of: 80,000 US Military Personnel + 27,000 US Military Personnel Returingfrom the Wars + 10,000 US Military Returning from the Closed US Military Installations at Germany + 5 more Brigades. The Numbers to be thrown on Unemployment by Branch are here: US Army: www.armytimes.com; USAF:www.airforcetimes.com; USMC: www.marinecorpstimes.com; USN: www.navytimes.com

The xxx,xxx US DOD Civilians that used to support the RIF'ed US Military to be thrown on Unemployment are listed here: www.federaltimes.com.; also mentioned but not listed in detail are the millions of US Civilians of the US Military Defense Industrial Complex to also be thrown on Unemployment (President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta's "A 10% US Military Defense Budget Cut will result in 1 (one) Million US Citizens becoming Unemployed").

First Lady Michelle Obama needs to have a very long talk with her husband President Obama:

First Lady Michelle Obama on Letterman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e1R0lliFHc

First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden Launch Joining Forces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-URRStJJ9E

How is President Obama's RIFing that many US Military of the 1% of US Citizens, meaning more deployments, and longer deployments and throwing those US Military Servicemembers and their Families on Unemployment helping the situation. How is eliminating all those Skilled High Paying and "Fair and Living" Wage US Civilian Jobs going to help US Manufacturing, US Industry, US Raw Materials Processing, US Research and Development, US Farming and US Food Processing, etc. and the Foreign Military Sales (hundreds of Billions USDs) of US Military Equipment for Decades (hundreds of Millions per year) going to help the US Economy and US Trade Deficits.

6. Suspension or elimination of the US Free Trade Agreements and Amendments and replaced by Fair Trade Agreements. Suspension or elimination of the US Most Favor Trade Nation Status for China.

7. A Flat Tax of about 20% with NO Loop Holes (elimination or suspension of the complex US Tax Laws (Codes)) with Value Added Taxes (VAT, definition: Those similar products not Made In the US are taxed to offset the loss of the sales of similar US Products.) and Sales Taxes.

8. Suspension or Elimination of those parts of the 1920 Jones Act, that allows the State of California and many other States to slap Taxes on Products shipped thru their State to another State to make huge Profits. examples: a. State of California automatically increasing the costs of anything shipped thru California to the State (not Territory) of Hawaii as a "Paradise Tax"., b. Requirement of Foreign Vessels (Foreign Registry) like Cruise Ships and Cargo Ships to sail from California to a Foreign Destination before sailing to State of Hawaii, additional fuel costs, increases in prices (due to additional fuel costs) making this unaffordable to US Citizens.

9. Allow the Building of Safer Thorium Nuclear Reactors at the US to replace all the current over 104 less safe 1980s US Nuclear Reactors to: a. Increase the numbers of Thorium Nuclear Reactors, less dependence on any Oil (some still needed for Oil Based Plastics)., b. Use of the Thorium Nuclear Reactors to decrease the current amounts of Nuclear Waste., c. Increase the available Electricity at the US., d. Minimize the risks of a Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. from occuring (by design Thorium Nuclear Reactors normally off, not normally on).

10. Demand the start of the Brazil Alternative Energy Solution to: a. Generate Fuel for current (small modification) and future US Vehicles., b. Generate Electricity., c. Decrease the US Foreign Oil., d. Decrease the use of less effective Food (Corn) to Ethanol (according to US Department of Energy).

11. Suspend the use of US Taxpayer money for United Nations Missions, and US Military placed into United Nations life or death situations. Until the Chinese and Russians also pay their Citizens Taxpayer money and use of their Militaries to accomplish United Nations Missions.

*************There are many more Solutions. That I researched since 1989***************

Nerm_L "The Democrats are saying that Social Security is sound - the government will absolutely honor those bonds."

I seem to recall Obama saying last year that "I'm not sure we'll be able to send out Social Security checks, because there is no money" as part of his threat against the Republicans to get his debt limit raised without any concessions on spending cuts.

Oh, what short memories we have.

Nerm_L "@ROY WILSON-336103 -- Not only are Nancy Pelosi and Richard Trumka REAL - they are right."

So the Trustees say that 'we're going to run out of money even faster than we thought', and Nancy and Richard say "everythings fine", and you agree with them?

Now I have to ask if YOU are for real.

RoyW: the president did indeed say they might not be able to send out checks during the crisis over the debt ceiling--not because there was no money in the trust fund, but because the debt ceiling wouldn't allow incoming revenue to be used to repay the funds borrowed from the trust fund.

Roy: We don't have short memories, however, the Obama supporters have either No memory or else they suffer from selective memory. This is the actual Social Security website, explaining in detail, what is set to happen if Obama continues to underfund SS (payroll tax cuts) while essentially turning a blind eye to what is really happening.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect06.html

@ROY WILSON-336103 -- You are confusing lack of assets with no liquid assets. It can be a difficult concept for someone unfamiliar with how businesses operate and how an economy works.

You can have trillions worth of assets or trillions worth of guaranteed future revenue - but - with no cash on hand, you cannot pay your bills unless you can borrow against your assets or guaranteed future revenue. Obama's statement was about not having 'cash on hand' to send out checks - not that the checks would never be sent.

The state of the current Republican economy is such that delayed payments can be devastating for a lot of people.

"Yes, the trust fund was borrowed to pay for tax cuts."

that's some crybaby azz BS from a poster...the SS fund was being borrowed from since the day it was established , you know , The New Deal , it is a ponzi scheme dreamed up by foolish people with FDR representing as the Town Fool.

Nerm_L "@ROY WILSON-336103 -- You are confusing lack of assets with no liquid assets. It can be a difficult concept for someone unfamiliar with how businesses operate and how an economy works. "

If you read my bio (Controller, VP of Finance, MBA, Corp. President), you would realize how ridiculous that sounds.

My point is - how can you say "The Democrats are saying that Social Security is sound - the government will absolutely honor those bonds" on the one hand, and then have Obama say "We might not be able to honor those bond payments to Social Security recipients" on the other hand.

Doesn't that strike you as duplicitous?

@mygirl1 -- The current payroll tax 'holiday' amounts to a decrease in revenue of $120 billion per year. Allowing the payroll tax holiday to expire after two years means SoSec collects $15.4 trillion over 20 years instead of $15.6 trillion over 20 years - which amount to a 1.5 pct reduction in revenues.

dslsca "RoyW: the president did indeed say they might not be able to send out checks during the crisis over the debt ceiling--not because there was no money in the trust fund"

Now I have to ask if YOU are for real? Do you not realize that there is NO money in the Social Security Trust Fund? There is nothing but IOUs, because the government takes and spends every penny as it comes in.

RoyW: Those "IOUs" are US Treasury bonds. Remember them? Millions of regular folks buy them and get the dividends from them for years and then get the cash value out of them afterwards. One of the safest investments in the world.

@ROY WILSON-336103 -- The only duplicitous statement is the spinning what Obama actually said - to - the government is not going to pay benefits.

Obama did not say that the government would not pay the benefits - that is your spin.

Obama did say that the government may not have available cash money on hand to send checks out on schedule.

With your credentials, you should easily recognize that Republicans were obstructing the government's ability to borrow against guaranteed future earnings and allowed the government's cash reserves to be depleted. An artificial means of guaranteed disaster.

Updated 4:05pm ET The trustees of the Social Security system said Monday the fund that helps sustain retiree and survivors’ benefits will become exhausted in 2033, three years sooner than they projected last year.

At that point, payroll taxes and taxation of Social Security benefits will provide only enough income to pay about 75 percent of the benefits that Congress has promised to retirees and survivors

Its worse than we thought...where have I heard that line before? ROFL. Get ready for many more revisions and miscalculations folks hahahaha. Wow, couldnt see this one coming eh? hehehe

We ARE in great trouble. I read all these "solutions" to the SS dilemma, and I think therein lies our problem. Who among us recognizes how the entitlement mentality of the American citizen is now complete, that what the vast majority of Americans want is for someone else to take care of them, and, partly at least, for very fair logic: We took care of those coming before us. SS "as we know it" should end. If you tried on a private level to do this wonderful work you would commit various crimes, be investigated (but only after many "investor" complaints were ignored for years by the SEC or some other feckless agency of the government), tried, and likely incarcerated for decades. That is how wonderful SS really is--it's a public wonder, but a private crime.

How about we rethink what we are doing? I mean, if for no other reason let's change the system so that it is less racist, for instance. What, you didn't know that blacks in America get a worse ROI than whites or asians? That because it lacks "ownership" and isn't fully inheritable as other assets are that it has robbed hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth FROM the people least likely to accumulate wealth, and transferred it to those who lived longer, like white women. That its ROI, except for the luckiest of lifespans, is pathetic. Or that SS was always devised first and foremost as a way to get the people to give more money to the government for current spending without having them think it would be used for current spending?

Just look at so many of the above posts where people wrongly think that it wasn't until the late 60s that the nefarious President Johnson wanted to conceal budget deficits and so he "stole" the money. Or Congress "stole" the money. The 1935 Act REQUIRES that all surpluses in the SS account be converted to Treasury Bills. And we had surpluses all along until the Unified Budget Act period began. The goal was to get Congress more money to spend, and it spent it. Does anyone really think this was never going to be how Congress would act? No wonder we are in trouble, many people actually DO think Congress will do what is right before Congress does what voters want.

End SS as we know it. Convert it into some privately run fund or many funds, perhaps if you leftists are so worried it can be a basic annuity (very conservative financialy speaking), make it fully "owned" and inheritable so that minorities and many blue collar workers are no longer screwed by the system, and get the government out of the business of trying to delude voters into accepting the idea that they can continue to get something for nothing.

"cash value later" , right after they are taxed to the hilt, "regulars folks" do better with corporate investment , it would be foolish to rely on Treasury bonds

does Nerm actually believe all that babble?

Bottom line, if you are waiting around for the government to do things for you , you will die. Evolution, that favorite Liberal hymn...you are going to have to live it now. Evolve or die!

@if you have to ask -- The issues will be subject to capital gains taxes. The capital gains are not subject to income brackets - they are a flat 15%. The municipal issue will likely be tax exempt. You need to deduct the taxes from the yield on the corporate issue.

The tax exemption on municipal issues can be a distinct advantage. Municipal issues are also more secure than corporate issues.

I love all the comments blaming the republicans for the SS shortage. If any of them had spent any time looking to see when it started being raided, they would find it was during Lyndon Jonson's term that it started, by the Democrats! Of course that would mean they might have to take part of the blame for their party then. If it had never been raided, it would last for a long time. alos, SSI and Medicare would be solvent if it wasn't given to illegal aliens that never paid into it! Start limiting the number of children to welfare mothers would help also. Not everyone abuses the system, but the ones that do are ruining it for all. There is no reason for SS to go broke. When you count all the people that have paid into the system that have died andbeen killed before they could make use of it, that is money that should carry over any increase in population. Everyone that wants to share the wealth will so discover, when the rich are out of money, the government will come after any you have next. But what the heck, as long as you get yours now why worry right? As the quality of teachers goes down, the infomation that our children will learn will be of lesser quality also. A good example is so many of the posters on here that have no idea about economics, taxes or anything to do with how the government is supposed to be!

And what are the odds we will meaningfully fix these failed entitlement programs, like SS, while it's still very cheap to borrow money so we can live beyond our means? How about zero. It isn't going to happen, and won't happen until we can either no longer borrow money from our unborn heirs so we can have our fun today, or our population gets educated in finance and economics. Which means it won't happen until borrowing costs become to high for us to continue to act stupidly.

The real tragedy in all of this is that reduced benies are going to be minor problems compared to the rest of the crap that is going to be hitting the fan all at the same time. I plan on being dead in 20 years, not everyone will be as fortunate.

Skorned: in #1.96 above you write "Bottom line, if you are waiting around for the government to do things for you , you will die." So, if we don't wait around for the government to do things for us, we'll live forever??????

SS and Medicare is only going broke because Welfare and Medicaid are part of the fund and the Congress is allowing theft from the fund to pay for other things. What does anyone expect when we pay almost a trillion dollars a year for those programs that help those that don't contribute. The least they should be expected to do is keep our cities clean. Hell, North Korea looks more well kept.

I am 48 and self-employed. That means I pay in the whole 17% for myself and half of my employees. It will run out as I retire. I don't think I want to contribute any longer.

Nerm_L

Right, I understand the bonds are 100% good (they better be or we're in real trouble). The General Fund will be paying those back from ~2020 to 2033, then poof, they're done. At that point the General Fund will have been USED TO PAYING BACK $200B a year toward those bonds in the Trust Fund. If the bonds are PAID at that point, and we just STOP PAYING the 25% UNFUNDED amount of SOCIALSECURITY, it will be a HUGE ($200B) windfall at that point from a year-on-year cash standpoint form the General Fund. Suddenly there will be no more payments to SS.

What I'm saying, is we could just LEND the Trust Fund the $200B from the General Fund, and let the demographics even the payments out over the NEXT 50 years. Problem solved, with almost no changes other than perhaps a few tweaks--no 25% reduction in payments, or 3% increase in the tax.

dslsca

Skorned: in #1.96 above you write "Bottom line, if you are waiting around for the government to do things for you , you will die." So, if we don't wait around for the government to do things for us, we'll live forever??????

Point well taken...you will die regardless! Now that you put it that way, how depressing! There is no escape!

I think I know the formula to fix this. Class warfare, racial division, and gender conflict! We are lucky enough to have a leader with the foresight to see this!

The two biggest ponzie schemes known to mankind, Social Insecurity and Mediscam, are about to implode. Gee, who saw THAT coming???

(Sarc)

One of the biggest reasons is that they allow people who did not pay into ss to draw from it, for "disability claims". Many of the disabled are just loafers on the dole, so put them back on welfare and stop paying them out of social security. That money should only be for those who have paid into it and who are retired and/or proved to be disabled, and they should only draw what they have paid into it.

I know of a family that both the husband and wife draw from social security and neither of them is retirement age or have worked and paid into social security. They both draw the same benefits as the people who worked all their lives and actually contributed money. The reason so many go for disability instead of welfare is that it pays more, plus they don't require you to work......it has become a free ride for lazy people.

One of the biggest reasons is that they allow people who did not pay into ss to draw from it, for "disability claims". Many of the disabled are just loafers on the dole, so put them back on welfare and stop paying them out of social security. That money should only be for those who have paid into it and who are retired and/or proved to be disabled, and they should only draw what they have paid into it.

Good idea! Those that draw from the SS would then be drawing out of the welfare account! Why cant our leaders be this creative! Problem solved!

"I believe Bush tried to reach a compromise to fix social security and Democrats wouldn't go for the small privatization portion of the bill and rejected his plan. Maybe the Democrats were just being obstructionist, and playing politics with these real issues. Right?"

Wrong. Even the Republicans did not get on board GWB's privatization scheme.

Give the republican another 8 years like Bush and it will be depleded in 4 year.

@SmBusOwnerinNY -- Ah, I see where you are coming from. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the trust fund be protected somewhat to provide a better guarantee into the future for younger workers. I can understand how that would be attractive to people under 40 years of age.

One suggestion I would make is that instead of trying to create some sort of 'lending' mechanism - simply adjust the interest rates on the bonds. The accounting system for that is already in place and would not create another bureaucratic step. Perhaps like adding an inflation adjustment to the current rate - or - a an add on based on the ratio of beneficiaries to contributors.

The danger is that the trust can become overly politicized - and - could create a pathway to deplete or devalue the trust fund.

I believe I understand the concern and don't see why it would not be possible to address the concern. Setting up the mechanism would be a bloody fight, though, no matter how it was accomplished.

@oneiron-4324713 -- President Bush's proposal was about saving Wall Street - not saving Social Security. Wall Street is going to face the same problems that Social Security will be facing - more withdrawals than contributions.

If the individual mandate in Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional - then privatizing Social Security would also be unconstitutional because it would be a mandate to purchase a product in the market place.

The Republican reaction to their own health care plan may have finally protected Social Security from the scavengers on Wall Street.

Exactly blondeness! And then on top of it they get paid for the time that they were waiting to get Social Security Disability. I know 2 people, one 31 and one 42, that live at low income housing and received back pay, one for $70K and one for $110K just because it took several years to get it. That's ridiculous! And on top of it they now get free medicare and/or medicaid. By the way both are still at low income housing and both have depleted the funds............

"The municipal issue will likely be tax exempt"

wrong , what else is old

"Municipal bonds have an after-tax yield edge over Treasuries, corporates and other taxable bonds most of the time—but not always" ,

just the beginning of information available , crow tastes nasty

Social Security is a ponzi scheme , except you don't have the option not to participate in the criminal activity , you are forced to pay in a little now in hopes of getting more out of it later , Bernie Madoff is a rank amateur compared to FDR and The New Scam

Do the math 22 million immigrants most laborers small payments into ssi recieved higher adjusted benefits do to congressional action back when so they would be able to live off of ssi in old age. A person who was born hear, a woman, worked at OakRidge gets 400. a month compared to adjusted benefit, because was not a migrant worker which is what the bill represented. The government spends freely around the world. Thats how its been in my lifetime.

Bob: there's no math to do in your comment. Undocumented workers pay into the system but cannot draw benefits from it. And all benefits are based on contributions, so someone with a lower salary who made smaller payments will draw a smaller benefit.

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. It is called Social Security "insurance" because you do not get your premiums back if you don't make a claim, and if you make a claim your payout is higher than your premiums because the money is pooled. Social Security is invested:

The Social Security trust funds are required by law to be invested in securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. Thus, the trust funds are intra-governmental debt. These securities can be redeemed as needed to make benefit payments when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions are no longer are sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. (The controversy over whether the U.S. government is capable of redeeming the trust fund assets is a topic of the sustainability of the unified Federal budget.)

Which brings us to your suggestion SmBusOwnerinNY, and the problem of Peter paying Paul. Perhaps guaranteed investment of other kinds should be considered?

Gary 420

George W tried but was shouted down by democrats that said "there is no social security problem".

Obama has done nothing.

Come on, let's get real here. It's not that Dems said there is no problem, though SS is solvent for plenty of time to strengthen it. Dubya wanted to privatize Social Security. After the economic meltdown at the end of his administration and so many people lost their 401ks (and pensions), we were grateful his idea was ignored. Likewise, most people realize Paul Ryan's plan is not a serious solution either.

The president and the Dems would like to create jobs via the Jobs Bill, and would like to prepare for the future in a responsible way whether strengthening SS or reforming health care. They have been looking at means testing and other solutions for SS and Medicare. But good luck getting anything passed with the obstructionist Teapublicans in congress.

Why should FICA with-holding be capped at $106,000? That's peanuts compared to what the rich pull in now. That used to be the cut-off for the richest 5%. Who believes someone earning as much as $250,000 isn't planning on SS and Medicare in their retirement? If so, then we need means testing to limit what they collect, because they didn't pay into the system on their entire income (in other words it should be progressive like income taxes). Such measures alone would immediately make programs solvent much longer.

The eligibility age and benefits can't be changed anymore. A lot of people can't work past 65 let alone 70, and with cost of living factored in, payout can't be cut. We need more money in these funds, and we need congress unable to touch those funds. This and the tax code --these keep coming back to fairness, along with government accountability.

Nerm_L "@ROY WILSON-336103 -- The only duplicitous statement is the spinning what Obama actually said - to - the government is not going to pay benefits..............Obama did not say that the government would not pay the benefits - that is your spin. Obama did say that the government may not have available cash money on hand to send checks out on schedule. "

I guess we could go around and around on this issue, but what's the point. You say that the Democrats insist that all payments on the IOU bonds will be made as needed, but Obama said 'Well, maybe we won't be able to make the payments as promised' on those IOU bonds that provide the funds for the benefits. To me that's duplicitous.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The reality is that the government collected about $2.7 Trillion in 'Trust Fund' tax receipts, and then spent it instead of keeping it in a safe account, like they require of private companies. Now, future taxpayers will have to pay that same $2.7 Trillion back again with new tax increases in the future. That's a total of $5.4 Trillion in taxes collected by the government, but only $2.7 Trillion will actually be paid out to SS recipients.

Such a deal.

So many in here go through detailed analysis and explanation pointing fingers here and pointing fingers there. Then we read the article and how the SS money will run out in 20XX. But there is just one SMALL problem - THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND RIGHT NOW!! Don't talk about 2039 (or whatever the heck they are talking about) talk about 2012!! There is NO MONEY in the trust fund but only Treasury Bonds. What is a Treasury Bond? A loan. No cash. No dollars. No dinero (or whatever other term you want to use). There is nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

Let me explain why. Say a family has a cookie jar and for years put money in the jar. Let's further assume they have $20,000 in the jar. Then for their 30th wedding anniversary decided to take the family to Alaska and go on a 10 day cruise. So they "borrow" $20,000 from the cookie jar and replace with an IOU. They enjoy the cruise and 5 years later ready to retire. The husband tells the wife not to worry because there is $20,000 in the cookie jar. WHAT?!?!? What kind of nonesense is THAT!! There is NO MONEY in the cookie jar!! You CANNOT borrow from yourself and THEN say there is still money in the cookie jar. There is NOTHING!! ZILCH!! NADA!! It is EMPTY!! ANY dollars now needing to spent from the cookie jar must be borrowed!!

Just like Social Security!! There is NOTHING in there!! We are BROKE!! We must start borrowing TODAY to cover some of the Social Security payment (actually we started borrowing LAST year which was the first year less money went into SS than was paid out). This mess will need to be addressed NOW!! Not in some fictitious 25 years!! We are BROKE!! We have NOTHING!! We have NO MONEY!! And NOTHING in the SS Trust Fund!! Wake up!!

Oh and by the way - Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme!! It is mathematically impossible to pay the "benefits" promised so our politicians are/were either incompetent when they said so or they lied. I am not sure which is worse...

Bob: there's no math to do in your comment. Undocumented workers pay into the system but cannot draw benefits from it. And all benefits are based on contributions, so someone with a lower salary who made smaller payments will draw a smaller benefit.

This cannot be true without a stolen SS number. Maybe that story on dead people's identities being stolen has a correlation eh?

Orlando: and it IS mathematically possible for people to invest the exact same amount of money with Wall Street and have everyone's retirement funded that way??

TruePatriot-445959 "Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme...The Social Security trust funds are required by law to be invested in securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government."

That was a convenient way of allowing the government to take the 'Trust Funds' and spend them - nothing more.

The fact remains that the government took $2.7 Trillion of payroll tax receipts intended for the Social Security accounts and spent it. Now, the government will have to collect ANOTHER $2.7 Trillion in future tax receipts to pay the benefits promised. In other words, they will have collected $5.4 Trillion in taxes for Social Security, but will only pay out $2.7 Trillion in benefits.

No matter how you try to 'spin' it, that is the reality.

If Social Security isn't the best example of how Washington can never be trusted, then none exists. If Social Security is not the best example of why we need a balanced budget amendment, then none exists. Washington will flat out spend every penny they take in earmarked or otherwise, and borrow or print the rest without the slightest concern for whom they hurt. There is no fiscal responsibility on either side of the isle when the plan to balance the budget is 30 to 40 years down the road.. The lack of fiscal restraint, and the deep entitlement hole leaves no hope for Social Security. It will be the first major entitlement to fail, and all because we trusted Washington to manage it. It will certainly not be the last failure by a long shot.

The majority of the monies this country borrows is not from other country like China and other foreign countries.

THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY THAT THIS COUNTRY BORROWS IS FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.

How odd that the agreement to pay Afghanistan 4 billion dollars per year is not bothersome to any of these war hawks and conservative yet if 4 billion dollars should be spent on helping our own Americans here at home these folks froth at the mouth, as if the people here at home do not matter. These folkks would not allow 4 billions dollars per year to help subsidize affordable healthcare for the masses in the USA.

If 4 billion dollars per year should be spent rebuilding our roads, levees, dams, bridges, high speed rail, refurbishing anc converting those boarded up buildings in the cities into housing, etc all which would provide employment for the American people here at home - as these jobs cannot be outsourced overseas- there would be the T'repcon complaining that this country do not have the money for this.

If any attempt to cut the defense budget then there is this outcry that this should not be done, when the majority of the funds are being used to either support or purchase millitaria/weapons that we do not need or that is already obsolete or already in cost over-runs.

No wonder the US Postal Service is being required to put billions of dollars each year towards paying for future employees health/pension funds 75 years into the future, no doubt because this money is probably being put into the general funds and probably is or will also be paying for Congress pension funds too amoung others.

Enough is enough. It is time that we cut the monies that we are spending overseas giving to these countries to mollify them especially in the middle east. Let those government in that region take care of their own people.

It is also time to raise the taxes on these so called small businesses which have 60 thousand employees world wide yet because the was they are set up it is made to look like a mom and pop operation with maybe a few employees or even a hundred employees.

What is also amazing is that these polititians are quick to tell the masses in our country that we are deadbeats looking for a hand out, and are also quick to point out what they cannot do for the peoples of the USA but they have no problem in approving huge funding for the various other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq etc as if the masses in the USA owe these other countries something.

While the USA is busy extending our MILITARY/DEFENSE reach into other regions around the world the Chinese are extending their ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL reach into other regions/countries around the world.

Who do you think will have a better return on their money? Well it certainly will not be the USA.

These T'repcondinos and the Democrats in Congress was supposed to be the lobbiests for the masses, which they are not doing imo. The T'repcondino polititians especially, have become lobbiests for their big donors, rich, corporations - both foreign and domestic- and their buds only from the look of things with their skrw the masses attitude.

As an unaffilliate Independent I take a dim view of all polititians. I vote my wallet/pocketbook/bank account/pension. I vote for the person who I believe can do the job he/she is elected to do and do not vote by party period.

So what has the T'repcondinos done to help this country so far?

What infrastructure work have they championed and had done or is doing save trying to do away with protecting the consumer, the people of this country, the environment, water, air, sea, land, food, drugs/pharma and food and pharma, medical supply, mines, etc?

How is championing the Keystone Pipeline and the refining of toxic oil sand sludge going to help our country, if it should spill which is likely, or the enormous amounts of energy and water etc it would use up to detoxify and refine this oil sand sludge even as it pollutes our air, and if it should spill will pollute our farm lands and water aquafiers with dangerous health/land/water destroying chemicals? Why dont the Canadians refine their tar sands themselves? Could it be because of their energy/water resources that it will take to refine it plus the pollutants that will be released into their air?

What have they done to stop the outsourcing of jobs overseas?

What have they done to bring back the various industries that was outsourced under the Bush administration under the guise that we were moving towards the service industry.

So, where are those 'service' jobs that President Bush stated this country was going have to supposedly take the place of those manufactoring jobs etc that was being moved overseas?

What about those uneven trade agreements which has turned out to be a windfall for those other countries and not for the USA i.e. the masses in this country? What is being done to make correction to same?

When will the T'republicons stop working on and passing bills taking away reproductive right of women? When will they stop the fillibustering of jobs bills that would repair/rebuild our infrastructure etc and would thus provide jobs for the masses? When will they start getting work done for the benefit of the masses for a change?

When will the T'republicondinos stop fillibustering the closing of tax loop holes etc and raise taxes on the rich/ corporations i.e the 1-10%ers?

Who really thinks that Mr Romney is going to help the masses? Did he help them over the his career as a venture capitalist and or even then as a govenor? If he should win the WH why should he change to helping the masses after a lifetime of not doing so? Based on his statements during the primaries it is it not more than likely that he will just revert to form and what he may be comfortable with and do the same as he has done in the past, as can be seem by his endorsement of the T'Ryan T'repcondino budget which only benefits the top 1-10% ers?

The cost of living in this country continue to rise while the standard of living continues to fall for the masses .... how is Mr Romney going to turn that around that the masses have a standard of living on par with other first world countries in Europe like in Germany, France or England or a standard of living like folks in Australia or Japan enjoys for example?

What is he going to do to set thing in motion to educate the next generation for the 21st century jobs market? How about the retraining that is need now?

What about immigration?

How is that going to be addressed? How about the housing problems and the forclosures?

How is Mr Romney stating that we should 'let the housing market hit bottom allow investors to buy these homes and rent them out' going to help the rest of the population who own a home and is trying to keep it?

How about those homeowners home values? Aren't their home values going to hit bottom too ie. not worth much losing all their hard earned cash that they have invested/paid as downpayment and mortgage over the years? What is Mr Romney going to do about that and the various other issues like homelessness due to lack of affordable housing etc?

Won't even bother to mention the problem of healthcare .....

During the 1980s the replicons took attention away from a lot of problems by talking about ...just say no to drugs. In the 1990 the Republicons took attention away from the problems in this country with their Iraq war and their with their Willie Horton ads. In the 2000s the Republicons took attention away from the problems in the country with their WMDs and the war in Iraq and then Afghanistan then on to AlQuieda. 2010 to now the Rebublicons are taking away the attention on their lack of work in Congress and their fillibustering, their anti-reproductive rights, anti- equal pay for women, the 2008 economy crash and the lack of prosecution of those involved etc and the other disfunctions with birtherism, Obama want to take away your guns-isms, terrorisms and religiousity versus reproductive rights -isms and pro-profilisms, pro-racial bias -isms and the various other crapisms... So what next?

Peace..... think for yourselves......

If Social Security is not the best example of why we need a balanced budget amendment, then none exists.

Balanced budget amendments are the most irrational bills that legislators can pass. They restrain the government from maintaining funding for important programs like education and ban deficit spending. People would think that that would be beneficial for our finances, but it would destroy the economy. BB amendments (as I call them) prevent the government from spending money on projects to hire employees when the economy turns south, and it also keeps the government from paying for wars. World War II would have been lost had we had a balanced budget amendment. In addition, whenever the government goes into the red, we have to either cut spending or raise taxes like in the states. They are literally volatile institutions. They cut programs for education and healthcare, negatively affecting the economy and the welfare of the citizens. They are the worst thing that we could pass (besides the Ryan bill and privatizing Social Security), and should be thrown into the scrap heap.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

One other thing..... now Democrats.... what are you going to do for the rest of us? Or are you just blowing hot air pretending that you are not just like your T'repcondino collegues?

Sgnd.... Unaffilliated Independent.

Freshieee

I think the education system that you write of has already failed if you believe the government spending money will reduce debt.

And if you believe that it is the governments job to give welfare to the citizens, what will this country look like when there are no longer wealthy people subsidizing sloth because they have been taxed to poordom or the bonds that they hold become worthless and the welfare programs come to an end.

Do a little math. There is not enough money in all the countries in the world to pay off our debt.

One benefit of the eventual crash and burn is that idiots on welfare won't be able to have computers to post crap on the web.

Wrong again Freshiee,

We should just make this reply to you the standard uniform reply so as to help identify your "batting average", which is .000. A balanced budget amendment, at least all that have been discussed, would allow deficit spending but only in those cases where the Congress votes for war, or for national emergencies. It would prohibit no spending on all those failed ideas that you think produce wonderful results--I mean, think about it, we are now spending about $125k per student in order to get them out of just high school, and the majority of those kids will end up paying very little back to the gov't in taxes...what a deal huh?--but it would require Congress to make hard choices. If that spending is truly a priority, then they will either have to cut something else, OR, raise taxes (not necessarily tax rates), OR, put into place pro-growth economic policies (and, no, nothing Mr. Obama proposes is pro-growth, so far anyhow) so that more people will be employed and will either need fewer government freebies or they will contribute to the pot of money the government uses to conduct its operations.

I would think that a mature populace in a self-governing nation would want to make hard choices rather than simply continue to borrow from our unborn heirs so we can live beyond our means today. Other than immoral war, could we conduct ourselves in a less moral way than by stealing from future Americans who have no say in the matter?

The answer, to me, is no. I suspect to you it is perfectly acceptable to steal money from people so you can use it for your own purposes today, which might be the main reason you support Mr. Obama. To my shame, all too often politicians in my own party have been complicit with your immoral object. But none can remotely compare to those you favor.

John and Rich: and deeper tax cuts for the ultrawealthy will help the economy how?????

dslsca

I don't believe I wrote anything about tax cuts for the rich. But raising their taxes to make them pay for the masses only makes everyone poor.

By the way, to a comment you made earlier, illegals and their employers still have to pay full price into SS and Medicare. The only adjustment is in the number of deductions they declare and it only affects state and federal taxes. SS and Medicare are mandates that do not change.

Take my SS and you can also take my student loan and shove it where the sun doesnt shine..

It should also be unlawful to tax my pension more than what it was spent.

Hi dslsca,

Like John I don't think I wrote anything about wanting deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, or anyone else for that matter. Maybe you just wanted to bait us? Well, I guess my reply would be in the form of a question for you...You imply that higher tax rates might improve the economy given that you seem to dismiss that lower tax rates can, so could you explain how someone else (it's never "you" in the liberal world, is it?) paying a higher tax rate, or paying more taxes to the government, helps to improve the economy?

Why don't we simply end this charade that the entire left, and a significant portion of the right, engage in regarding taxes? You don't REALLY want to improve the economy by taking more of someone elses money and giving it to the government. This is about envy and jealousy. This is about wanting something for yourself, even if what you want is a policy--like welfare--that you might not yourself benefit from directly, for nothing. No cost to you at all. Let someone else pay for your political choices, right? We might as well be blunt. Your political ideas, meaning those ideas that come, generally, from the left, are not what propelled the USA to greatness. They are not moral. They are immoral. This isn't to say we should not want to help our fellow man, or to educate our children, or to help with lifesaving medical care, at our collective cost. What it is to say is that you want all these things done for you on SOMEONE ELSES DIME.

You, and people like you, are serfs, whether or not you recognize your own serfdom. By your actions, by your arguments, you serve notice to everyone capable of critical thought, that you eschew the very principle our nation was founded upon in favor of the more modern ideal of the left, which is to take by political force that which you are unable to produce by personal effort. Franklin was right. When the people discovered they could vote themselves money, the republic would cease to exist.

Social Security is Strong:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=F63D73C1-81DF-4DFB-AAC3-730092ED9406

Protect it.

Heaven forbid we are forced to live socially, like humans have done since we crawled from the oceans. Going back to live with your kids/relatives would be so shameful - entitled much?

So employers get to subject you to hazardous conditions, and when you get permanently injured/disabled, some of you want to cut them off... what, so you won't have to live with anybody but your cable TV and your dog when you reach 65yo?

How about we put the semi disabled in your slacker job and you go get a real job? Do we need a perfectly healthy person sitting in a toll booth making $40,000 a year, or a healthy person sitting at a monitor all day looking for shoplifters? Disabled people can still work - but healthy people love to take jobs we can do. I'm disabled, guess who's job I could do, my vocational councilors job, that's who. My VC wants me to do repetitive booking (the worst thing for me) while she does almost no repetitive entry. After a year of retraining I physically broke down (again) - nice plan you set up there bucko. I wanted to get into Social Services - I figured I could process Food Stamp applicants - but at the last minute they said that wasn't an option. So, now we have millions of healthy people doing jobs that require little physical effort. You may not like socialism - but it sure would find areas that fit specific people instead of able bodied people filling those jobs at 22 years old and then paying them retirement when they are 52yo.

That getting to retire after 20/25/30 years of service is a joke - what a con job. And that private sector running SS and SSD - they don't bother to drain society after 30 years - they just take it from you the second they think they can get away with it.

Move back in with the kids - and die at a natural age - is that too much for you self entitled spoiled brats?

Psalms 2012:

Obama is the messiah I do not want.

He leadeth me beside still factories.

He restoreth my faith in the Tea party.

He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.

Yea, tho I walk through the valley of the free cheese & bread line, I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with us.

He has Anointed my income with taxes, My expenses runneth over my income.

Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,

The Democrats and I will forever live in Government housing.

But I am glad that I am free.... Amen.

Nerm_L

Here we are the next day.....I hope you come back....you're one of very few who are thinking this out (you too, TruePatriot).

The General Fund has been using Trust Fund money forever, effectively allowing the government, which is SUPPOSED to run on the system of progressive taxation, to run (partly) on the REGRESSIVE FICA taxation system. So for 50 years, tax cuts for the well-off have been funded by people making less than $106,000.

What I'm suggesting is that the General Fund can return the favor, where the SS system is funded by the General Fund for a while. It's all fair, you know.

The ONLY legislation needed is a one page law that allows the Trust Fund to not only LEND money, but also to BORROW money from the General Fund. Sort of like your checking account with an overdraft line of credit. With this sytem the interest rate is the same in both directions--T-bill rates--and "WE" are getting the interest payments in both directions too.

We're GOING to be using General Fund money to the tune of $2.7 Trillion between now and 2033 BY DEFINITION. Why can't we continue to do that after 2033?

OK, so, as I suggest, if we pass the "Trust Fund Can Borrow Too" law, where do we get the money to pay the benefits after 2033?

My answer: wherever we got the money to pay all the bills in 2032! Right up until the money runs out, we will have been paying back the Trust Fund at a VERY steep rate--to the tune of $200B a year.

Just keep doing that! ....but keep track of how much the TF borrows and let it borrow and pay back that money over the next 50 years as demographics change and as the countly moves past the boomer and boomer echo generations.

There may need to be small changes needed, but not 25% cuts, or 3% changes in the tax rate (12% to 15% is really a 25% change in the tax rate too). Looking out 75 years, you might have to tweak 0.5% here or there once every 20 years. That's it.

OK, so what's wrong with that? Anyone? Anyone?

Wake up people, Washington is not offering nor do they have any real solutions to our debt crisis. Of which Social Security is only one of the failures on the immediate horizon. Washington has made promises that they have NO HOPE of ever living up too, plain and simple. All any of our politicians want to do is kick the can far enough down the road so they are not in office when the country collapses financially. Even if they are, Obama has set a new standard for making matters worse but blaming someone else. Unfortunately blame solves nothing, and blame will never pay any bill.

The US has amassed 118 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, TODAY. That number climbs by the second as jobs and incomes shrink, and there is no one in Washington that cares one bit. Social Security alone is fast approaching 16 trillion in liabilities. Medicare is over 82 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Just how much more debt can this nation handle when it has been bleeding jobs since NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton? This whole country is being mortgaged, and it is being run as nothing more then a giant shell game delaying the truth as long as possible.

We report almost 13 million unemployed, even though the actual number is over 22 million. Washington just doesn't seem to feel that being honest about anything is part of their job description. This nation is flat broke, and there isn't an honest attempt by anyone in the Obama administration to lead on this issue. Reductions in planned future spending increases are simply not cuts in spending. All we get is more spending, more borrowing, more printing, and more broken promises.

When we have a Washington that cannot even be honest about the number of people that are actually unemployed, then why would you believe anything else they have to say. The numbers simply do not add up, and everyone in Washington already knows we are on a path of no return. But do you think for one second, they would actually be honest enough to tell you? If ever there were an election that we needed to clean house, it is this one.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Hi Rich and John! John, you need to go back and read what I wrote--I said that the undocumented and their employers pay in to Medicare and SS through their payroll taxes; they just aren't elgible to claim benefits later. This was a point repeatedly made by then presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani when he ran. Rich, I'm certainly in favor of raising "my" taxes (when you say no one is ever in favor of raising their own taxes you ignore prople like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Barack Obama, etc.). If the wealthy pay more in taxes, that helps the economy as that money gets spent and circulated, as opposed to sitting in "investments" that simply drain more money out of the general economy and into the accounts of the wealthy who aren't lifting a finger to make that money.

The Social Security System is broken. It is financially bankrupt and there is no money in it. It was/is a Ponzi Scheme of the grandest proportion. Almost ironic that Bernie Maddoff went to jail for the rest of his life for the same thing our Federal Government has been doing on a much greater scale for going on 80 years. When you take money from one group to pay promised "returns" from a previous group that is a Ponzi Scheme. All the money I paid in since I took my first job in 1978 and there is not ONE DOLLAR in the "trust fund" of my contribution. So we must make promises to CURRENT AND FUTURE workers in order to confiscate THEIR money and pay me when my time comes.

Interesting fact regarding Ponzi Schemes. Empirically tested it has been found that a Ponzi Scheme can only last 3 "rounds". That is because each "round" needs an exponential amount of people to make up the additional money owed to the previous "round". Empirically it has been found that it collapses in the 4th "round". Interesting........ Let's think about this. Social Security paid its first benefit in 1939. Let's also assume that each "round" is 30 years (logic being if a parent retires at 65 then the next generation, the children, will start getting benefits about 30 years later) so that means if the 1st "round" was 1939, then the 2nd "round" is 1969, then the 3rd "round" starts around 1999, so the 4th round will hit about 2029. And let's not forget the money that was IN the Social Security system was already borrowed and spent so even 2029 is a stretch. Welcome to 2012 - when the Social Security system (aka Ponzi Scheme) begins its collapse................. Do you realize last year (2011) was the first year we paid more OUT than came IN? Interesting.......

Hi dslsca,

Unfortunately for you the facts of your post are just not backed up by reality. Raising the tax rate on income will do nothing to alter the tax rate on capital gains, which is how people like Buffett tend to structure their pay. And Mr. Obama, for lack of anything remotely similar to a spine, in his last tax reform proposal specifically sets the threshold for the higher rate at a level above his income. He, too, would not pay a higher tax rate. His proposal is not what Mr. Buffett favors, at least not what he originally favored, though that really misses the point. The point is that you want someone elses taxes to increase, not your own, for what you continue to claim would be economic development. And here is the major, let's call it an error to be polite, of your thinking.

You argue that the wealthy, by paying more and keeping less, would improve the economy as that money would be put to work rather than in "investments" they own. Of course you also, simultaneously, and with no apparent sense of irony, also claim that this money they invest will accrue to their benefit without them lifing a finger to make it happen. This latter fatuous claim supports my premise that your goal here is not economic progress, but rather some weird concept of equity on your part where what you didn't earn should be given to you to make things fair. Anyhow, back to the former.

The idea that taking more money from private citizens for government use, beyond the minimum amount necessary to provide for armies and navies and post offices and courts, and those othe Article One enumerated powers, improves the economy rests on one single, and pathetically wrong, premise: That private individuals engaged in commerce, whether by investing or consuming, benefit the economy LESS than government directed activities. Like, I suppose, job training programs, or unemployment, or food stamps, or, well you can fill out the list I am sure. Now, for the simple and unassailable proof that your idea is preposterous on its face.

If you are right then the government should get EVERY dollar of your income, and mine, and the uber-wealthy's, since the government is better at spending it than we as a people can be. Several problems, obviously, pop up. First, you support higher taxes on others, not you, and so you cannot logically support your premise since your actions belie it. Second, there is no historical analog to support your premise to be found anywhere on earth. Third, it is unlikely that an inept populace, as you suggest we are, in a self-governing political system, would be collectively wiser in who we elect to spend our money better than we can that we would be collectively wiser in spending our own money. Fourth, there isn't, and has never been, a single government program of any significance to the general population other than those authorized under Article One which has produced the benefits promised (or more than promised) at the predicted cost (or less than predicted), meaning that the government is always less efficacious than originally claimed.

There is an even more complete argument to refute your ideas, but this isn't the best place to try to discuss it given the length it requires. Suffice to say, though, it is the refusal of too many people, including most every liberal, to accept economic information (employment rates, incomes, tax receipts, capacity rates, and so on) for what it is, which is indicators about policy effectiveness, when they cast their votes. You want what the laws of economics continues to tell you is impossible. When will you wake up?

Expect the Social Security trustees in the not too distant future to conclude that the system depletion date be even earlier. Something needs to be done now but congress is loath to touch it for fear of reprisals. Their position is to let some future congress deal with it.

Unfortunately, the retirement age window needs to be pushed back at least three years and the salary limit on contributions needs to be eliminated. These two changes are fairly straightforward but will meet with a lot of resistance from those that have no counter proposals of their own. The end result if nothing is done, and soon, is disaster.

You act like the disabled spend your money, Tom. SSD is not a ponzi scheme, it is not welfare, it is a program working people pay into. It pays pooled money as insurance benefits. Hopefully it will not have to be used. Disabilities do not have to be physical in nature, a diagnosed psychiatric diagnosis, is just as valid to collect disability. Most disabled live BELOW the poverty line. The Disabled do not wear badges that say "I am on disability." Just hope you yourself are never disabled, if you get your way regarding SSD.

Rich: I'm wide awake, thanks. I am aware that increasing the ceiling on earnings subject to the payroll tax won't address unearned income. That's why I favor the "Buffet Rule" of having a minimum floor below which rich people cannot fall in paying taxes.

I think you at least partially misunderstand my point about the rich and investments. When a spoiled grandchild inherits $400,000,000 from a grandparent s/he never even knew and lives his/her whole life cashing dividend and interest checks, s/he has not lifted a finger to earn that money and the Republican plans to do away with estate taxes and to lower tax rates for the ultrawealthy will only compound that injustice. If the government spent that money on highways and bridges and health care and education and modernizing the electrical grid, it would create a much larger benefit for society than simply allowing it to "grow" in private hands and take even more money out of general circulation.

dslsca: Typical liberal reply. Can't argue facts so come up with one outrageous and unlikely scenario and use that as justification for widespread changes.

First, in 2007 we spent about $2.729 Trillion and brought in (tax revenues) about $2.568 Trillion. The deficit in 2007 was about $160 Billion. Jump to 2012. Will bring in tax revenues about $2.5 Trillion (about the same as 2007) but spending $3.8 Trillion so we must borrow about $1.3 Trillion. And you say it is tax rates and "Buffet Rule" is the reason? Sorry, facts are facts and irrational thoughts are irrational thoughts. We don't have a tax problem - we have a SPENDING problem!!

And when you have a spending problem there is only one rational solution. STOP SPENDING!! So your logic is to take money from a "spoiled kid" and use that to improve highways, bridges, and health care. I have a better idea: Find out where all the money is going. Just like in our personal lives if we go on a cruise then complain we don't have money to pay the mortgage then it is our fault. When the government spends money NOT on highways, bridges, and health care but on other useless things THEN don't come to me later asking for MORE that is irresponsible. Spend the money wisely the FIRST TIME!!

BTW, all estimates state that EVEN if the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" were rescinded and the "Buffet Rule" was implemented it would bring in just under $80 Billion (and that is assuming it does not affect our economy which anybody with at least the IQ of a turnip knows will have catastrophic negative impact to our economy) $80 Billion is a drop in the bucket when you are borrowing $1.3 Trillion.

I tell you what - I'll make a deal with you. You and the liberals in D.C. cut spending by $1.2 Trillion a year THEN I will support tax increases to make up the additional $100 Billion. But NO NEW TAXES until this government learns how to manage money. We have a SPENDING problem!! Not a tax revenue problem............

ProBusiness: Your "deal" was made during the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and now the Republicans (not the Democrats) are trying to back out of the spending cuts. Anybody with the IQ of a turnip (as you so charmingly put it) knows that the government paying its bills will help, not hurt, the economy.

You compare the US to a family that goes on a cruise but then can't pay the mortgage and at the same time say that cutting spending is the only solution; wouldn't a family in that situation accept an increase in income? And a family in that situation wouldn't cut the education of their children or the food and medical care of their aged parents, but would cut the BMW the breadwinner drives. So do you or don't you want the government to act like a family in this situation??

Rich: above you write "First, you support higher taxes on others, not you, and so you cannot logically support your premise since your actions belie it." Where'd you get that crazy idea? I absolutely support raising MY taxes.

This whole mess would be solved if they made SS and Medicare need based. When someone that has over $1,000,000 in the bank at retirement, they will earn at 7%, $1,700,000 in gains over 15 years and still have the original million, so $2.7 million while they live off SS and get free medical.

At the same time, they will pull $270,000 out of the SS system that they really don't need. The average couple retiring next year with an $80,000 income will have paid in $118,000 in Medicare. They will pull out over $350,000 out.

So, in summary, they will pull $620,000 out of the system (more than they paid in) and gain $1,700,000 and will it to their kids. The system was never designed to take care of the rich, but it is.

On the other hand, trying to justify taking their entitlements, they need to cut welfare to the bone. I don't know about anyone else, but when some on Welfare have a better standard of living than myself working 70 hours a week, I say let them starve, either that or they will get jobs and pay their own way. I don't owe either group anything and I am sick an tired of certain groups legislating that I do.

If they did just these two things, in twenty years we would be debt free and social security and medicare would last forever.

Hi dslsca,

We face a multitude of problems with your posts. First, no one is arguing to raise your taxes, and so to say you favor such a thing is of little help since it isn't about to happen. What you do favor is raising taxes on others. This seems to be perfectly logical, except not to you. But the bigger problems with what you think, and why, revolves around your laughable example to prove your point.

If someone is to inherit $400 million dollars they will lose the majority of that in estate taxes, so you should be happy about all the economic growth that should create. Of course it doesn't, but that isn't what we are arguing, really. But say someone, this mythical person you have conjured up, does inherit $400 million bucks. There are two things, and only two things, they can do with that money. They can spend it, or they can spend it later (which could be another generational inheritance, like the Kennedy clan). Anyhow, if they spend it now then jobs presumably are created since someone must make, or do, whatever that money is being spent on. Even if it is to buy a 200 foot yacht, someone builds the yachts. Even if it is to buy a 50 carat rock, someone had to mine it, cut it, set it, transport it, and so on. In fact, all of the absolute WORST cases of conspicuous consumption still produce greater economic activity, but what really irks you is that it isn't activity that you want to benefit you.

Or, the wealthy scum you have magically created might invest the money, and as you say, just cash dividend checks. Well, dividends result from money being put to work, as in owning all or part of a firm that does something, earns profits, pays taxes, and shares the net profits after taxes with the owners. Buffett, who did not inherit his money, might be a great example of such a person. He buys and sells firms expecting to get a ROI worthy of his time and expertise. People are employed, stuff is manufactured, services provided, taxes at all levels paid to the government, and all of this wonderful economic growth you pretend taxes paid to the government must result. But even if this was a Kennedy, someone who really did nothing to get their station in life, it is still money they are putting to work which benefits the economy.

Your idea, ill-thought out as it is, can only work if you believe that the government can do a better job at creating economic growth, from whatever source (like you mentioned, infrastructure maybe) than you can. See, when you take my money, knowing as you do that you can spend it far wiser that I can, the fact is that I can't spend it, or spend it later, since it is gone. Whatever economic activity I was going to create is not created, and is instead replaced by whatever economic activity the government can create with what used to be my money. So, do you honestly think that in a self-governing republic the people aren't smart enough to operate to their own economic benefit MORE than the government we elect can? What gives you such faith in government, besides the dearth of economic understanding you possess?

I have a different solution. Accept that some people won't buy the things you know are better for them they they think. Accept that some people are going to invest in things you think they should not. Accept the fact that the government is not as efficient an investor as the people, collectively. Accept that higher taxes on one segment of society, while they might satisfy your immoral (imho) jealous concerns, does nothing to improve the economy and instead makes us all worse off. Let's go for a flat-rate income tax, eliminate all other federal taxes, and we'll test your claim that you favor higher taxes on yourself then. My money is on your envy, not your honor.

Rich: your use of the royal "we" is amusing. I certainly am arguing for raising my own taxes (as are others) as I enthusiastically support allowing ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire and not be renewed. If you haven't heard anyone talking about doing this, you just haven't been listening. A flat rate income tax (eliminating all other federal taxes and, I assume, with no deductions and loopholes) would almost certainly lower my taxes and not raise them.

Your use of terms I NEVER used like "wealthy scum" (and accusing me of magically creating them to boot) and referring to my "immoral (imho) jealous concerns" have no place in this discussion. I didn't accuse you of having "immoral (imho) selfish concerns," now did I?

You seem not to realize that individuals can express how they'd like their money spent by the way they vote and that the decisions of an elected body (at least in theory) are an expression of the will of the populace. You also ignore the fact that individuals alone cannot do/fund some tasks we need done (like, oh, building the interstate highway system or fight our wars).

What gives me such faith in the government? Oh, I dunno, maybe I just think that people like Washington and Hamilton and Madison and Morris knew what they were doing and that they'd put nation before self-interest; maybe I think the 440,000 US citizens who died in WWII didn't give up their lives so that we could pretend the sole thing freedom means having a choice among a small range of disposable plastic consumer goods while a tiny handful of people get obscenely rich; maybe I just think markets should work for people and not the other way around; maybe I think families are more important than corporations; maybe I think that labor produces wealth and capital and not the other way around; maybe I think that health is more important than the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry.

If letting rich people run things with no interference from the government were the answer, we wouldn't be having this converastion in the first place as it would already have worked.

john-737278

Freshieee

I think the education system that you write of has already failed if you believe the government spending money will reduce debt.

And if you believe that it is the governments job to give welfare to the citizens, what will this country look like when there are no longer wealthy people subsidizing sloth because they have been taxed to poordom or the bonds that they hold become worthless and the welfare programs come to an end.

Where the hell did I say that spending money will get you out of a debt problem??? Everyone knows that is BS. Obama knows it, and so does the rest of America. What I implied was spending money to get out of a recession. If you right-wingers were so smart you'd realize that spending money gets you out of a recession, and that deficits during a bad economy are not necessarily a cause for alarm.

I do believe its the government's job to help out the less fortunate. Why you may ask??? Because who else will pick up the slack??? Charities collect nowhere near enough money to help the millions of people struggling in Haiti, so why the hell would we trust them with over 50 million in the US??? And not all of the poor are bums and moochers like you right-wingers make it out to be. My father kept on selling me that stuff, and I don't believe that everyone on food stamps or Medicaid is a moocher. Some are, but not all. And we will always have wealthy people, because their taxes are not as high as you think. Millionaires pay an average of 18% of their income a year in taxes, down from 29.9% in the 1990s. I think they can afford to pay more. If the middle class has to deal with reforms (not privatizations) of SS and Medicare and spending cuts to domestic programs authorized by the summer debt deal, I think the damn "job creators" can pony up a few more bucks to help lower the deficit. Ever heard of SHARED SACRIFICE??? Apparently not, because all you right-wingers advocate are tax cuts that only benefit the wealthy and cuts to programs that help the poor and the middle class.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee "Balanced budget amendments are the most irrational bills that legislators can pass. They restrain the government from maintaining funding for important programs like education and ban deficit spending. People would think that that would be beneficial for our finances, but it would destroy the economy. BB amendments (as I call them) prevent the government from spending money on projects to hire employees when the economy turns south, and it also keeps the government from paying for wars"

Other posters have already pointed out your error in comments - that there are exceptions to any BB legislation for emergencies, but the REAL problem with Deficit spending is the long term effects. Personally, I believe in Keynesian economics (extra government spending in a recession to boost the economy), but the problem is that politicians never apply the OTHER SIDE of Keynesian economics - to wit, 'when the economy recovers, use the excess revenues to pay back the Deficit'.

Instead, the politicians always use those 'extra revenues' to pander for votes with new spending programs. The result is that we have persistent inflation that erodes the value of the Dollar - Case in point - $1.00 in 1970 is now worth only about $0.17.

We are now in that 'downward spiral' economically, wherein we will have a constant losing struggle to pay the interest on our national debt while trying to maintain social services. We are not yet in the same boat with Greece, but we are headed there, and the politicians ignore the problem (or they get demonized as heartless if they try).

To avoid an overly lengthy post, I will make a separate post of the REAL Deficit problem, as well as a proposed solution.

dslsca

If "labor produces wealth and capital" how can it be justified to legislate theft from one group to pay for another? Wouldn't both or all groups be expected to supply such "labor" in equal amounts?

Freshieee

As far as shared sacrifice, when the other 40% of the population starts paying taxes then it will be shared sacrifice.

As far as the less fortunate, let them die or get jobs. The world is over populated anyway. I didn't create them, and I should not be legislated and mandated to do so. That is theft. Or if you prefer, illegal seizure of my property.

As far as right winger, I am not. I am dead center taking care of my own. That is my responsibility. I have no other.

And when you try to justify government spending, it is the exact opposite of dealing with our debt.

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic nformation, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but Obama has conveniently ignored the problem in his Budget projections, and will demonize any Republicans that try to address the problem (Rep. Ryan).

It's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $75 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

I welcome any comments.

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic nformation, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but Obama has conveniently ignored the problem in his Budget projections, and will demonize any Republicans that try to address the problem (Rep. Ryan).

It's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $75 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

I welcome any comments.

Sorry for the triple post - I kept getting a message that it couldn't be posted - to try again.

RoyWilson: above you write "Personally, I believe in Keynesian economics (extra government spending in a recession to boost the economy), but the problem is that politicians never apply the OTHER SIDE of Keynesian economics - to wit, 'when the economy recovers, use the excess revenues to pay back the Deficit'." I'd offer you the final years of the Clinton administration as evidence that the Democrats can and will use revenues in economically prosperous times to pay off the deficit. It's the Republicans who have no credibility on this issue, having decided that giving tax cuts to wealthy people was more important than the deficit.

John 737: you appear to have confused taxation with theft. A visit to the "T" section of any good dictionary will set you straight.

dslsca

When one group is given special treatment over another, it is theft. It is like trying to justify a robber breaking into my home and taking food because I have some.

Equal representation should imply equal taxation.

John737: above you write "As far as shared sacrifice, when the other 40% of the population starts paying taxes then it will be shared sacrifice." Where is this mythical 40% who pay no taxes? I never see 'em! I see payroll tax (which funds SS) taken out of every cent in their paychecks. I see them paying sales tax at Wal*Mart every day. I see them paying gas tax on every gallon they pump. I see their landlords raise their rent to cover property taxes. I see excise tax charged on every telephone call they make and every beer they drink. These people who pay no taxes just don't exist outside the fantasy world of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

John737: taxation simply is not theft. No matter how many times you and Ayn Rand say it, they simply are not and never were the same thing.

dslsca

Oh, by the way, Clinton had a Republican Congress, and even wiki can tell you who spends the money. Does that mean you are now a conservative.

Yes everyone pays one tax or another, but not all pay payroll taxes, which include fed,state,SS, and Medicare. Yet you believe that a special few should.

Oh and I do have a choice about paying into the system that is geared against people who want to get ahead. I am not ignorant, all I have to do is reduce my income to below the poverty line and you can pay my bills. How would you sit with that.

John737: I know Clinton had a Republican Congress. So, do you attribute our current annual deficit to the Republican House (where constitutionally ALL spending bills must originate) rather than to the President? Didn't think so.

Anyone who earns money pays payroll tax; the only income exempt from it is unearned income (and I'd sure like to see that changed).

I'm certainly not a conservative. I'm a Socialist.

Yeah, yeah, somehow I never actually see people voluntarily reduce their income and try to live below the poverty line. It isn't much fun and you wouldn't like it.

Oh and I do have a choice about paying into the system that is geared against people who want to get ahead. I am not ignorant, all I have to do is reduce my income to below the poverty line and you can pay my bills. How would you sit with that.

This system is not geared against rich people. They have seen their salaries skyrocket over the past three decades. And mooching off welfare DOES NOT PAY. You don't get a check for $50,000; it's considerably less. Sure there are moochers, but not as much as you think. So stop spouting the anti-welfare line and learn some facts about poverty.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee: While I absolutely agree with the spirit of your post 100%, I do think John737 has a point. The system IS geared against people who want to get ahead; it's geared in favor of the people who were already ahead to begin with.

@Tom - Plymouth

Actually, d*mb@ss, I have all my tax records going back to the 1st year I started working (more than two decades). I KNOW EXACTLY how much tax I have paid every single year I have worked. Can you say that? And I have ALWAYS done my own taxes so I know EXACTLY what the tax code says (I have even read some of the more detailed publications) and how it has changed over the years. Can you YOU say that?

Congress is made up of both the house and the senate (can also be found on wiki, isn't this fun though) and unless both pass legislation it is pointless. And quite honestly, the dysfunctional house has actually stopped spending if you hadn't noticed.

Have you ever done your taxes? Pick up some forms and look through them. Many, once ded. are calculated pay no tax.

And believe it or not, it is quite simple. Let's take a base income of $26,000 a year. According to ACA 133% of the poverty line will get medicaid. Free Medical. I value that at around $10,000 per year.

Now my real income is $36,000.

There are also childcare payments so I can go make my $26,000. Last year, in MN a woman was complaining when the Government shut down that she would not receive her $3,400 a month in child care allowance paid to her mother for a job to make $15,000. She had 3 kids. That is $40,800 a year.

Now my income is $76,800. Wow look at me go.

Then there is housing assistance. Last year I watched a section 8 family move into a lake home. See, it is based on income and rent as a percentage. Tenants pay around 30% of the rent. So if the rental is $2,000 a month, the section 8 family will pay $600. Boy I'd like to get by on that. That would be $1,400 a month, or $16,800 a year.

Now my income is $93,600.

Then there are food stamps because we sure wouldn't want the sloth to go hungry. Monthly food stamp payment for a family of five. $526 a month or $6312 a year.

Now my income is $99,912

Funny, or not so funny thing is is that taxes are based on income and I will pay no income tax because the freebies are built in. So if you take into account taxes and what the original income would have been it would be roughly $140,000 per year before taxes.

But wait! I saved the best for last. Below the poverty line my kids can get a "free" college education. I would estimate that at around $20,000 per kid for six years(because if it is free, why not stay in), for three kids, or $360,000.

And the beauty of it is that I could turn my business to exclusively cash and make it happen. And more and more are doing it all the time.

Still want to pay for it?

Most people in the middle class never actually crunch the numbers and wonder why the supposed poor actually live better than they do. They also never stop to wonder why the crime rates have been so low. Why would they steal from the middle class, when they have more? We spent nearly a trillion dollars last year on welfare and healthcare for welfare. Divide that up by the population below the poverty level.

@john-737278

If special treatment is considered "theft" than the wealthiest donors to SuperPACs are the biggest criminals in human history. Your logic, your words.

I don't believe you get to write off private campaign contributions. I don't agree with the SuperPacs, I think they allow the richest to buy power, and thereby buy more money.

Please don't label me. Like I wrote earlier, I am for the middle class, the 80% without representation.

John737: Youre post above at #1.167 is just laughable. Let's take it in the order you dish it out. You write: "According to ACA 133% of the poverty line will get medicaid. Free Medical. I value that at around $10,000 per year." Dunno what the ACA says, but in my state no able bodied single adult is eligible for Medicaid. Period. And it doesn't matter what YOU value things at, Silly Boy; it matters what they cost. Then you go on to child care and write: "Last year, in MN a woman was complaining when the Government shut down that she would not receive her $3,400 a month in child care allowance paid to her mother for a job to make $15,000. She had 3 kids. That is $40,800 a year." So you're counting as income moneys someone complained that she didn't get! Then you go on to housing writing, "Then there is housing assistance. Last year I watched a section 8 family move into a lake home. See, it is based on income and rent as a percentage. Tenants pay around 30% of the rent. So if the rental is $2,000 a month, the section 8 family will pay $600. Boy I'd like to get by on that. That would be $1,400 a month, or $16,800 a year." But you never show you are a "section 8 family" and that you'd thus be eligible for this program. You go even further off the tracks when you get to food stamps, writing "Then there are food stamps because we sure wouldn't want the sloth to go hungry. Monthly food stamp payment for a family of five. $526 a month or $6312 a year." But above you calculated child care based on a smaller family, so which is it; and, just btw, people who make the $93,600 a year you've claimed to be making just one line above DO NOT QUALIFY for food stamps. Your little fantasy can't and doesn't happen in the world outside Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. People struggling to get by on public assistance are rarely raised above the poverty line by it and regularly have to choose between things like food, energy, and medicine as they can only afford one of the three. Get real, Dude. An estimated six million (yes, you read that correctly) people in the US have food stamps as their sole income. Why aren't they riding the bandwagon you describe above if it's so easy??? The average college graduate today ends his/her college career with over $20,000 in student debt, but you say they can go for free! If this is all so easy, why don't you do it? If you tried, you'd see how quickly people at the agencies that help real poor people would laugh in your face and you'd also see how quickly you'd be charged with criminal fraud.

ACA read the law. Anyone read "anyone" making 133% of the poverty level can get medicaid.

No, she did get it, and for years. And I am sure, but haven't checked probably got back payments.

If I can prove my income is low enough section 8 will happen for the sake of the children.

Food stamps, I will give you that one. it was based off 23 thousand a year, but you can't deny the availability, even if the amount is lower.

You can live in denial if you choose. When the government has as many fraud preventers actually checking up on people as people handing out "our" money, then I will be satisfied.

And I don't listen to Fox news and think Rush is a waste of flesh.

And just for clarification, I think the tax loopholes for the rich and corporations should be closed and capital gains should be taxed as regular income(including SS and Medicare) So I don't think I am as far right as you lay me out to be.

Cayman Isles,

tax loopholes..tax evasion, tax shelter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMPuYeAYc94orations

18,000 Corporations

1 building, $100 Billion Dollars a Year in taxes, not being paid to the I.R.S.

John737: I personally with my own ears heard the lady from the DSS office here tell a man (whom I had driven to the office so he could file his paperwork) that in this state "able bodied adults" are not eligible for Medicaid. You seem not to be aware that Medicaid is administered by the states and the qualification criteria for it vary from state to state. You say if you can prove your income is low enough you'd get the housing in the same breath in which you brag about how high your income is thanks to all these programs you want to shut down. You write, " When the government has as many fraud preventers actually checking up on people as people handing out "our" money, then I will be satisfied," but you want to slash funding to these programs; where exactly is the money to pay for these fraud preventers to come from then? I don't live in denial: I live in a very rural, VERY poor part of the country and I see what poverty is like. From my front porch I can see a house that's partially collapsed (with no electricity and no running water) where six adults and six children live with foodstamps and WIC as their SOLE income; I see the adults in the little library here applying online for jobs every day the library is open and never getting anywhere. According to you, those six adults ought to be making over $100,000 each, but (guess what?) no one in the whole nation is doing or has ever done the fantastical mooching you imagine above.

dslsca: Amazing the incredibly incompetent responses given over and over and over again. You are living in denial plain and simple. You talk about how we MUST spend money. You describe what poverty is. You describe how families should "want to send their children to school". You ramble about this then ramble about that but NEVER come up with a solution?

Let me see if I can make it just a LITTLE clearer - here it goes............WE HAVE NO MONEY!! WE HAVE NO MONEY!! WE HAVE NO MONEY!! Where is all this money going to come from to pay for all these things you want?

I simply gave you an example stating, like a family, if you spend all your money on "fun stuff" (i.e. a family cruise) then making the point you don't have any money left to pay the mortgage or buy food. Your response (so silly I had to look again because I though I read it wrong) was to increase income. Really? Did that actually make sense when you typed it? A family just can't go out and increase income because they want to buy fun stuff. If that was the case they would ALREADY be making that increased income. No, the point is a family must learn to spend within its limitations. Same with government. The solution is NOT to increase spending then argue you must increase taxes to pay for it. Government must tax the people as low as possible and only to retrieve tax revenue for the TRUE functions of government which are rules of law, basic infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and protection of the people (police, fire dept, military). If government spends their limited resources on OTHER stuff then don't come screaming to me because you are out of money. Government has increased their spending over 30% in less than FIVE YEARS!! Unprecedented. Irresponsible. Unsustainable.

This country better learn how to spend responsibly or the global markets will teach them. This isn't "me" telling you. This will occur when investors and countries make the decision that the U.S. cannot possibly pay back its debt and will quit loaning us money. When THAT happens we are screwed. Better to cut the spending now and hurt a little over the next ten years than for the global markets to TELL us they won't lend us any more money and hurt A LOT!! Just like a family that is overextended. They can decide to cut spending themselves and start getting control of their debt and hurt financially for a short period of time or wait for the bank to tell them their credit line has been frozen and then they are screwed. We need to plan for it now and the answer being "but we need it" or "we have to have it" is baloney. There is only just a FEW items that we MUST have supplied by government. Everything else is "like to have".

Dslsca 1.150

Careful, your socialism is showing. As you stated, you enthusiastically support allowing ALL the Bush tax cuts to not be renewed. Do you even know what these tax cuts entail? If allowed to expire, the lower middle class and the poor will be hit the hardest. For example, the poor will see their tax rate jump by 50%. Is that what you have in mind?
These tax cuts, as you call them, enacted by Bush covered the entire spectrum of the taxpayers and it seems you have little concern for the impact on the poor so long as you think you're punishing the wealthy.

Socialism, a debilitating condition.

ProBus: I certainly was serious about a family increasing its income when it runs short of funds. You write, "A family just can't go out and increase income because they want to," but I bet if this thread were about unemployment benefits, you'd be saying someone could and should do just that rather than have benefits extended. I remember when my brother started college, my Mom (who had been a stay-at-home parent) got a job and my Dad took a weekend job, so yes, families do that all the time. [Such sacrifice wasn't necessary when I went off to college as I went for free on a National Merit Scholarship and I actually got paid to go to grad school. My folks spent the money they had saved for my college on a home in FL with a pool.]

So, where do I suggest the money come from? Several different sources. Let's cut military spending by 2/3 starting with the new budget year on July 1. Let's exempt the first, say, $40,000 of earned income from the payroll tax and then tax every earned cent after that and let's apply the payroll tax to every cent of unearned income from the very first cent. Let's have a "Buffet Rule for Corporations" which says that corporations who make money here must pay tax here regardless of whether they have a post office box in the Cayman Islands as their "official address" and so that those corporations (like GE, for instance) which make billions in profit annually but pay no federal corporate income tax must pay something. Let's eliminate the deductions that permit US businesses to write off the expenses they occur when they offshore jobs (yes, they can currently write off these expenditures--we taxpayers help them fund the loss of our own jobs). Let's put in a requirement that all businesses who contract with the federal government must have certain percentage (say, 40%) of their employees be Americans working here in the US. Let's put into law that the executive bonus/compensation packages of any institution which accepts any future bail-out funds must be voided (exactly as we said that union contracts had to be voided for the auto industry to accept its bail out), and that the federal government must be given voting stock equivalent to the value of bail-out funds in any enterprise it rescues and that it can vote/sell that stock just like any other shareholder can. Let's indict, prosecute, and recoup funds from anyone who spent fraudulently (like the recent GSA Las Vegas mess and any Medicaid/Food Stamp/WIC fraud). Let's reinstate Glass-Stegall so that banks don't have a motive to hide information from investors by putting the banks' interest before the investors' interest. Let's allow ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire and allow the Obama Payroll Tax Holiday to end. Let's pass a Constitution amendment that prohibits cutting any tax at a time when we are running a deficit or have a national debt. Let's pass another Constitutional amendment that unifies the currently split funding/appropriating process (i.e., let's make it a Constitutional requirement that passing any kind of spending automatically and by the same act passes the taxes necessary to fund that spending--MUCH more effective that the right's pet "Balanced Budget Amendment" project). Let's set a new minimum wage based on the poverty level (i.e., so that a person working full time cannot fall below that poverty level) and then index it to inflation so that we don't have to fight over it again and again every few years. Let's pass a version of "tenure" for jobholders, so that--after some reasonable trial period (five years?)--you OWN your job and are entitled to compensation from your employer if you lose your job through no fault of your own. Let's pass single payer (i.e, Medicare for everybody) health care and use the size of the population to get economies of scale and to bargain for cheaper pharmaceuticals, and to allow free access to preventitive care, etc. Let's require corporations to bear some of the costs associated with training their workers (so that a student doesn't have to go into thirty years worth of debt to be qualified to have a corporation make a profit from his labor). Let's eliminate "corporate welfare" (i.e., waiving property tax or water/sewer charges for businesses that will build in a certain location) so that companies bear the true costs of the profits they make.

You say I never talk about solutions or about addressing spending, so now I've done both for you.

WetWilly: I wasn't trying to hide my Socialism. I've been a Socialist ever since I was old enough to understand what that meant. Yes, I fully understand what allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire and that's exactly what I want us to do.

dslsca

http://www.examiner.com/article/couple-on-welfare-live-1-2-million-waterfront-mansion-fraud-video

Never happens huh?

Hi John737: Thanks for providing the link. You'll note in the link clearly states that they bought this mansion BEFORE they started defrauding the government and that it never establishes that any fraudulently obtained money bought the Jaguar they drove or that they netted income sufficient to pay for the foreign travel they did, merely that they perpetrated the fraud while continuing to travel abroad extravagantly and to drive the expensive car. You'll also note that the government is suing them for fraud (exactly what I said would happen to you if you tried to do what you describe above). The man in question is a chiropractor, and I'd guess he made a pretty good salary.

I've never said fraud doesn't exist. I've said that fraud won't get you the annual income you claimed above and that it would get you in legal trouble. This link does nothing to disprove my statement; it in fact fulfills exactly what I said would be the case.

Obviously there's fraud in the system. I'd rather have fraud in the system than have even one single deserving person turned down because there's not enough money to help everybody who honestly needs help.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Criminal-charges-still-possible-against-alleged-2351491.php

A little more in depth.

John737: thanks for the second link. You claimed you could get $100,000 a year by defrauding the government and this article says she got a little more than that over a decade. It also makes clear she didn't report her bank account holdings etc. when she applied for assistance. The mansion seems to have been purchased by the husband (I assume from his earnings as a chiropractor) before she started defrauding the government. I still don't see your point here. I acknowledge people defraud the government; that's not exactly big news, is it? I stand by my earlier statement: no one telling the government the truth about their financial situation can get the annual income from assistance that you claim above and people who defraud the government will be prosecuted for doing so. This story does noting to refute that claim.

The point is that the government has very little oversight and accountability. They should be checking every person we give free money to with a field agent. My point is also that there are probably a thousand to every one that gets caught. I understand that sometimes people need help, but the agencies who hand out the money don't seem to care because it is not their money they are giving away.

I laughed and sighed with one of the first bills the President signed when he took office. It was a bill to reduce the number of dead people we were sending checks to for SS and other benefits. Not eliminate, but reduce.

Here is another lovely case from Mass. How many are not getting caught?

http://www.enterprisenews.com/opinions/x643676120/OPINION-Brazen-welfare-fraud-case-must-prompt-state-action

John373: If you want a field agent to check on every person we give benefits to, then you need to support raising taxes to fund such activity. Absent supporting what it takes to do that, you're just blowing steam. I'm not sure how reducing the number of dead people erroneously or fraudulently obtaining benefits is a bad thing; can you show me how it's bad?? I think there are probably a small percentage of people scamming the system and an even smaller number of simple errors in awarding benefits. I've seen no evidence to see that there are a 1000 people scamming the system for every one that gets caught and neither have you; you just made up that number out of thin air. And I'd point out yet again that this link shows that the system catches and prosecutes people who defraud the government.

Zero dead people being paid would be appropriate. I am glad he signed it, it just didn't go far enough.

How many field agents could have been paid with the $700,000 in my last link. I don't think you would have to raise taxes at all because if they do their jobs, there would be less collecting what they don't deserve. I think it would easily self fund through savings.

john737: I agree that zero dead people being paid would be appropriate, but no matter what we do that'll probably never happen just because no human system is perfect. I don't think using the fact that some people scam the system and that some errors get made is a credible excuse to cut benefits for anyone who truly needs them. I also don't think using inspectors (or whatever you want to call these federal agents) to root out fraud and error should in any way expose genuinely needy people to humiliation, inconvenience, ridicule, or blame.

How many federal agents (trained, salaried, with benefits) could be funded with $700,000? Well again, that wasn't an annual figure. The annual amount involved probably wouldn't fund even a single one. I'm guessing a fully trained, salaried agent with federal benefits would run somewhere in the neighborhood of $65,000 a year, but I want to stress that's just a guess.

since the government is better at spending it than we as a people can be

No offense to taxpayers, but the government can actually spend money a bit better than we can. Not that they are doing it now (and I'm talking about the War on Terror and tax cuts), but the taxpayers often just use the money to buy a television or a vacation or something like that. While that does benefit the economy, very few people put that money into their savings, or invest in stocks or bonds. The government invests money in things like schools, roads, defense, etc. Based on the past 30 years, I'd say that taxpayers and the government spend the money the same way; the feds waste it on tax cuts and wars, while we waste it on TVs, vacations, and luxury items.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

dslsca

Reports were that this man was skimming $30,000 a month. I also don't agree to end all help other than a talking point, but it does need oversight and accountability. The only way to do that is to check up on them. I know several people personally who have gamed the system, some relatives. My cousin did the exact scenario I described earlier. That is how I know it can be done. I thought about turning them in, but my parents handled it first.

Look at it this way, how many more could be helped if abuse was stopped, or at least an attempt was made to monitor it?

John737: I think the stories you link to here show that "an attempt" is being made to monitor fraud. Your own evidence shows people are being prosecuted and your own anecdotal experience shows families are "handling" members who do this.

The problem is most don't and actually profit from it themselves. I dated a girl in the early eighties that had a mom who had a mom that was on welfare. Never worked a day in her life. Taught daughter to do the same thing, then taught her daughter to do the same thing. I thank my lucky stars I wasn't dumb enough to knock her up. Housing assistance, food, daycare, the whole mess, and never worked a day in their lives. Just smart enough to game the system.

The government is only prosecuting after the money is all gone. That is wrong. Random checks would do much more good. As I wrote, there are probably a thousand that don't get caught to every one that does.

My relative did not get caught, she stopped when the threat of getting turned in made her, after eight years on the system. And the whole time she was on the system, she was living with her boyfriend millionaire, and earning $80,000 a year in cash on top of the aid.

John737: I can only repeat what I've observed before: your statement that "there are probably a thousand that don't get caught to every one that does" has no data whatsoever to support it.

And why do you think that is? Maybe because the government does not even attempt to monitor justifiable benefits? How can they collect data if they have no means or responsibility to collect it?

In that case, your claim that I or the government has no data to back up my supposition is just as invalid as mine stating you have no claim to justify otherwise, and tell me I am wrong when I have seen it over and over again first hand.

Socialism could work if you could guarantee the honesty of society, but as you stated, you can't guarantee that result. It is a wonderful theory of what the world could be, if only the human element could be removed. Ask Greece how it is working out for them, so we will know what the US will look like in a couple of years.

john737: You yourself have provided links to stories showing people who are being prosecuted for benefit fraud and you tell a personal anecdote about a family member who was stopped from continuing to perpetrate fraud. Your own presentations here show that your latest statement "the government does not even attempt to monitor justifiable benefits" is untrue.

You tell me to ask Greece how it [Socialism?] is working out for them? Ask them now how capitalism is treating them!! And I'd offer nations like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, Canada, and New Zealand as very successful Socialist nations. While you are perfectly willing to see Greece (and Spain and Portugal?) as evidence of the failure of Socialism, you appear unwilling to see the Great Depression or our current Great Recession (the EU sector--dominated by capitalist Germany--dropped into a double-dip recession yesterday) as evidence of the failure of capitalism. The problem with capitalism is that you bankrupt the poor and the middle class and the rich still want more.

Blondness032, I have a maxim that there are no dumb blondes. There are some that act stupid, or are ignorant, I have to create a third catagory for you. You are offensive, with your suggestion that SSDI be lumped into welfare. People who don't work collect SSI at best.

I tell you what - I'll make a deal with you. You and the liberals in D.C. cut spending by $1.2 Trillion a year THEN I will support tax increases to make up the additional $100 Billion. But NO NEW TAXES until this government learns how to manage money. We have a SPENDING problem!! Not a tax revenue problem............

Cutting $1.2 trillion a year in a fragile recovery is economic suicide; I though you righties were all about economics. Frankly we have both problems. The Bush tax cuts and the recession cost the Treasury trillions in lower revenues, while the recession, wars overseas, and growing entitlement costs are also building up. Frankly, we need to cut spending and raise taxes. My proposal, repeal the Bush tax cuts except for about $1 trillion for the middle and lower class until about 2014, raise taxes on the top two income brackets by about 4 points, reform entitlements through increasing taxes, adjusting COLA, retaining estate taxes, eliminating the cap on earnings, and using progressive indexing. Add in about $2.4 trillion in cuts over 10 years (with one third from defense), and shielding education and NASA from any cuts, we have solved our long-term budgetary problems and can focus on revitalizing infrastructure, education, and our economy.

Let me see if I can make it just a LITTLE clearer - here it goes............WE HAVE NO MONEY!! WE HAVE NO MONEY!! WE HAVE NO MONEY!! Where is all this money going to come from to pay for all these things you want?

If we have no money, how come we have more millionaires and billionaires than most of the world and companies are sitting on trillions in unused capital???? If we have no money, how come tax rates are the lowest in 50 years???? Why don't we just raise taxes AND cut spending??? We've already made the cuts; and the GOP is trying to chicken out. Time for taxes, and this time the wealthy don't get any more breaks...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

dslsca

There is a difference between "monitoring" and "prosecuting" after the money is all gone. I really don't think your dumb, but why can't you see that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You can't really be justifying abuse until they get caught? Quite honestly those that get a free ride on us deserve a little loss in privacy for regular checks.

Those places you mention where socialism works have very good fraud prevention, and very little welfare. They require everyone to work. Some even require that if you can find a job, your cleaning the streets. And I believe the only thing Canada is socialist on is medical. They are very capitalistic.

John737: thanks for thinking I'm not dumb. In case you're interested, I have a PhD and for 29 years was a college professor and then Dean of an Honors College (though I assure you LOADS of people with PhDs are not very bright). Where have I said I'm against monitoring? I don't, however, want to use monitoring the way some on the right do, that is as a tool to discourage people who are legally entitled to the benefits from applying for them because of the hassle and humiliation. When you write of "those that get a free ride on us," you lose me; if I (for example) were to go on public assistance, I'd do so after having been employed and paying tax since I was 15. Why wouldn't I be getting something back that I'd paid into versus just getting a free ride from you? And the thread here is really about Social Security and I don't know that there's really all that big a problem with folks pretending to be old. You've asked repeatedly how many people are getting away with scamming the system; I wonder how many people who are genuinely eligible for the benefits aren't applying for them because of shame, or pride, or not knowing that the benefits are out there (or not knowing that they are indeed eligible), or for whatever reason?

You should visit Canada sometime. It's a lovely country. They have far more generous old age benefits than we do, much more protection for workers from arbitrary dismissal, more more generous unemployment assistance, much more financial support for students, a far less violent society. They somehow don't feel the compulsion we here south of the border do to impose our will on foreign nations violently.

I have been to Canada a couple times when I was younger, and have a couple of friends from there. You are right.

The reason that the welfare state is important and interconnected is that our government in its infinite wisdom has allowed taking from the fund that was built up by people who have worked their entire life to give to those that haven't. And out of respect for those that have worked there should be an obligation to make sure that resources are spent wisely. I simply believe prosecuting a few cases after the fact only brings to light that there are deeper problems that are not being dealt with.

Yes, there are people who should qualify for help, and don't receive it. That is why how the government goes about giving aid needs revamping.

John: Well, I'm glad we seem to be more in agreement than before, but I'll bet we prosecute more than "a few" cases.

I'm guessing that our difference on these matters boils down to how we see ourselves and others. I see the poor/needy as like me: as subject to massive and powerful political and social and economic forces against which they are pretty helpless; I see them and think "There but for the grace of God go I." I'm under the impression that when you look at the poor/needy, you see lazy moochers.

Actually I see some as lazy moochers because of how many I have seen personally that have abused the system and not gotten caught. But I do draw a difference between truly needy and abusers. Like in the daycare that my kids went to. The director of the facility's husband died, and she lost her home. She went on assistance until she got back on her feet and then went off. This director stated that a third of the kids in the daycare were from single mothers on assistance. This daycare cost between $225 and $275 per week depending on the age of the child. She continually discussed with my wife and I about how most of the women only went to work two or three days a week, but dropped their kids off every day of the week to go out and party on the days they didn't work. This was a women that needed the system who also knew how flawed it is. That is why I can draw a distinction between those who deserve help and those that don't.

Since you gave some I will too. The reason I don't necessarily feel sorry for some is that I started out after high school sleeping on the basement floor of my sisters home with nothing except clothes. Went to college for aerospace engineering for two years and had to quit because of the cost. Got a job laboring in the concrete industry, started my own concrete company and have made as much as most college graduates do in their entire lifetime by the time I was 48. I worked from nothing, and feel that if I was motivated enough to make good of my life so can others. It is also the reason when I look at how hard I had to work, why I have issues being forced to pay money to a system that is broken. They should have to prove that they can spend my money responsibly before they will earn my respect to justify me giving more. I don't think that is too much to ask.

John737: you have every right to be proud of your story of hard work and achievement. You're correct that anyone can achieve the same, but "everyone" can't achieve the same, as there just isn't enough money out there for everyone (regardless of how much hard work gets done by individuals) to be as prosperous. There is, however, enough money out there to keep "everyone" from being hungry, or cold, or homeless, or sick/injured without access to treatment. Until those basic human needs are universally met, I don't think we as a society can "afford" the "luxury" of having a tiny handful of obscenely wealthy people.

We are already paying for the debt that the OASDI trust owns. Most of the interest on the debt is paid to the OASDI trust. Increasing payroll contributions would increase the size of the OASDI trust - and - increase the amount of interest paid to the trust from general revenue.

All the political wrangling that is going on is an attempt to avoid paying back the debt owned by Social Security - to hold those Treasury bonds in the OASDI and avoid redeeming them. Increasing the amount of debt owned by Social Security will still require more general revenue in the form of interest payments.

It would be very simple to raise the cap ,which is $106,800. A huge # of people want it raised so everyone pays on ALL income. The President proposed to raise it to $250,000. Of course the Republicans rejected it because they HATE Social Security!

I don't think Repubs "hate" SS.

There is more than two side to this coin. 1. Congress steals from this pot every chance they get. 2. Outsourcing of jobs people are not paying in. 3. Americans refuse to buy made by Americans, my next car will be made by Americans. 4. To many non deserving people at very young ages are getting cash. The system needs to change as does food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare etc.

Matt

..they assessed recipients on a need-basis (come on, a millionaire doesn't need social security too),..

So you are asserting that a person who pays into SS all their lives are not entitled to the benefit? AND a person that perhaps never paid a penny into SS IS entitled to the benefit? Pathetic.

Obama also stole $120 billion in payroll tax revenue from SS in 2010 and again in 2011. Claimed it was a vital piece of his jobs program. But Obama also said reducing taxes doesn't create jobs.

I'm sure they refuse their checks every month................

the U.S. doles out SS disability checks to illegal drug addicts of any age.

@stop - are you saying that no other President used the money...........please

Removing the earnings cap would make SS solvent for the next century. This is a manufactured crisis.

Early Out, so if there is not cap, does the monthly check get capped?

They have playing this same fiddle for way too long. The cap was raised to $110K this year-why not just remove it and let everyone pay for the entire year but keep the same levels of pay-outs? Sounds simple, but they again, our elected officials never do anything simple. And please let's not do that rhetoric about raising the retirement age. Sure, there are people out there who are working at 70 and can handle it. But there are many who can't especially those who do physical labors. And, after 60, you ability to retain information and your flexibiilty starts to decline. I know because I am 65 and can't do what I could even 5 yrs. ago and I am certainly not over-weight, excerise, eat fruits and vegetables and watch very little TV.

As to disability payouts, it is beyond time that they stop handing it out because someone claims they are disabled. I see too many who "convinced" the right doctor or lawyer and are happy to get that monthly check which ranges from $850-$1900 depending on their prior employment for the rest of their life and then are able to also secure Medicare after two years which is a heck of a lot cheaper than medical insurance. To that, I believe people should be re-qualified every 3-5 yrs. and unless there is a very convincing reason, they should be mandated to return to some type of employment and if found to have fraudently worked the system, be foreced to pay it back.

And yes, they (our government, needs to stop borrowiong from the fund and pay what was borrowed back. It is not the governments money-it is the workers.

I have worked my whole like and will for another 20 years. They taxed me, cut funding, and denied raises. There better be SS when I retire. It is a mismanagement of funds, but they have enough for personal cars with free gas (paid for by the tax payer), paid travel expenses, free health insurance for life, and ridiculous salaries and pay increases. The government is a bunch of criminals.

Rick-868962 - Only a fool would believe it was just "liberals", but of course, there are a lot of fools voting conservative these days.

@Dett-people are "requalified" as disabled every 2-3 years by Social Security Disability. And for all you people who think it's so easy to get, I have multiple medical and surgical problems and have to walk with a walker after 2 failed back surgery, and it took me 3 years to get mine approved. Several of my doctors had to fill out paperwork, including my orthopedic surgeon to finally get approval.

Lacy, sorry to hear about your medical issues.

Stop by your local plasma center and check out all the people that are getting their disability checks, I have been a donor for 3 years now and it does take the people a long time to get it, but most getting it are perfectly capable of working some sort of job but their job was just getting disability.

This, right here, is the post child for not letting the federal government take control of your health care. They will f... it up beyond all belief. And all under the guise of protecting us, helping us.

It is a REALLY bad idea to put any one group or government in control of your life.

Add to the "giveaway" the FACT that the reason the unemployment figures are low is because as the benefits ran out a huge influx of early retirees and disability claims increased.

This reiterates something that I have known for quite some time now. Our country is going down the toilet and the politicians have finally managed to mess things up beyond repair. There is no fixing the social security or medicare or anything as long as you have a 2 party system. The problem with 2 party system is that they both have to agree in order to get things done. If one doesn't agree with the other then you have fighting and that accomplishes nothing.

It's time that we realize that we are no longer the great country we used to be we are crashing and burning and my suggestion to everyone out there is you better make sure your seatbelt is fastened your tray tables are in there upright positions and you better hold tight because this plane is going to crash. I hate to say that but the truth hurts. We've given all of our money to the Chinese because we all like cheap products (I'm just as guilty as anyone) Now we are broke so sit back everyone and grab a drink and some popcorn you are in for one heck of a show the downfall of the united states we are going to be brought to our knees and there is nothing we can do about it.

Congress would rather kill Social Security than fix it! Most everyone knows that an increase in the FICA withholding rate and requiring people with earnings exceeding the current cap to pay at the same rate as average Joe, would insure Social Security remained solvent for many decades into the future. But wait, the Republicans would call this a tax increase and it would take all the steam out of the goal to privatize the program.

Ding, ding, we have a winner. Raise FICA taxes 1% and raise the cap to about $200,000 (which is *less* than the President has proposed) and Social Security will be solvent forever. In fact, it will start running surpluses again in about 40 years, as the Baby Boom generation dies out.

That's all it would take: FICA taxes up 1%, and the cap up to $200,000. Now, who wants to bet on how long it will take Congress to come up with a "solution," and how much less efficient and less sensible it will be?

It would be very simple to raise the cap ,which is $106,800. A huge # of people want it raised so everyone pays on ALL income. The President proposed to raise it to $250,000. Of course the Republicans rejected it because they HATE Social Security!

I love all of you progressive, liberal twits. Republicans dont hate SS. Your just blind with hatred so you see nothing other than "Republicans are bad!!" Second, it is NOT fair to make a part of our society that will NEVER collect SS to pay into it. Please tell me how it is. You cant because it isnt.

I believe that the lower 48% of earners that "dont pay taxes" (they do, but they get what they pay back and then some from the gov't) shouldn't be getting checks back every year. If the gov't just kept the money that they paid in, we wouldn't have so many income issues.

Fix the damn tax system. Eliminate deductions and loopholes for EVERYONE, make a flatter tax system, dissolve the IRS. Voila, problem solved!

Mike FL, You should change your name to Eeyore. Dude cheer up.

So true, So true!!

So many people have to look at reality. Not all of congress is dems, nor repubs, but both + more.

stop the madening

Obama also stole $120 billion in payroll tax revenue from SS in 2010 and again in 2011. Claimed it was a vital piece of his jobs program. But Obama also said reducing taxes doesn't create jobs.

Technically, Obama said that reducing taxes for the wealthiest of Americans doesn't create jobs. Taxes on the middle class can or cannot depending on the circumstances. I have a theory that cutting progressive taxes doesn't help the middle class or create jobs because they disproportionately affect the wealthy, while the middle class benefits and can create jobs when regressive taxes are cut, like the Social Security payroll tax.

I believe that the lower 48% of earners that "dont pay taxes" (they do, but they get what they pay back and then some from the gov't) shouldn't be getting checks back every year. If the gov't just kept the money that they paid in, we wouldn't have so many income issues.

Correction; that amount consists of people who don't pay the income tax. They pay the payroll tax, which qualifies them to get SS checks. The reason why we have so many income issues concerning the government is because slow economic growth, stagnant wages, and stupid tax cuts that don't do anything.

usa1967

I don't think Repubs "hate" SS.

I don't think they do, but they have a mighty queer way of showing it.

Freshieee - Great points but don't say "queer" - the Right will go nuts.

Ha. They used to say it before queer meant gay. Even the old-fashioned right wingers seemed to have forgotten that...

@justoneguy

"So you are asserting that a person who pays into SS all their lives are not entitled to the benefit? AND a person that perhaps never paid a penny into SS IS entitled to the benefit? Pathetic."

you just got the definition of "democrat" , you must have chosen the red pill

actually Kim and Fresh , if anyone but a libbie uses the word "queer" you lefties "go nuts" and start throwing around "homophobe" , interesting eh?

Only if you righties use it as a noun. Not so interesting now, eh?

only libbies are allowed to use it as a noun?, now that's interesting , and proves my point , thanks

B ...as in B....S...as in S. All B.S. to get your shorts in a bundle. Just another ploy to get people to think about putting more money into Wallstreet to get the rest of your money they didn't get several years ago.

Bush jr. spent the entire first yr of office trying night and day to end Soc Sec for the wallstreeters. They want that money, driving them crazy. Smart people then completely opposed his nonsense, which proved to be the best decision for Americans. All of that money he wanted would have gone out the windows to the Banksters and wallstreet crooks when he crashed the economy. Now they are tryng to get you scared once more. Obama had to do cuts to S.S. taxes for repubs so he could pass unemployment benifits for the crashed economy.

What is amazing to me is the fact that some here actually think increasing taxes will save social security, when all it will do in fact is give Washington more money to waste. Washington has been talking about the need to save social security and medicare for decades, and here we are today still just talking about it. With one notable exception, we the people are talking about the need to save social security, but no one in the Obama administration is doing the same. For those in Washington like Obama and Reid, kicking the can down the road is easier then fixing a problem they created.

if you have to ask

only libbies are allowed to use it as a noun?, now that's interesting , and proves my point , thanks

I used it as an adjective, not a noun. And I'm leaving it at that, mainly because I don't want to have to learn grammar all over again...

Social security cannot be sustained in this environment. Cut backs will be required.

No...cut backs are NOT required. What is required is to remove the Wage Cap! Everyone who earns less than $110,000. pays a percentage of their entire wage into Social Security. If you make $50m per year you are still only taxed up to $110,00. Remove the cap so all income is taxed, not just the poor and middle class. Fence the funds. Do not allow congress or the administration to use Social Security Funds for any other purpose. Those two simple acts would secure Social Security once an for all.

Rick-3416939 - So I get the impression you believe turning over Social Security funds to Wall Street is a good alternative to the government program. I agree that raising the tax rate is a bad idea. However, if we remove the wage cap and fence the funds...the problem is solved without cutting senior's benefits or raising the percentage.

I love all of you progressive, liberal twits. Republicans dont hate SS. Your just blind with hatred so you see nothing other than "Republicans are bad!!" Second, it is NOT fair to make a part of our society that will NEVER collect SS to pay into it. Please tell me how it is. You cant because it isnt.

1. We Progressive, Liberal twits don't believe Republicans hate SS. We believe you love it so much you just can't wait to get your hands on it and force us to share it with your Wall Street masters.
2. As to fairness of taxing people for SS who will never collect it; is it fair to tax people for defense if they never go to war? Is it fair to tax people for street repairs if they don't drive? Is it fair to tax people for fire departments if they've never had a fire?

Who's the twit now?

"When they show you who they are...believe them!"

Actually, Old Doc, we need more that that. That would barely cover the shortfall. I say gradually move the payroll tax to 15% from 12%, and then use progressive indexing. Then, adjust COLA and preserve a tax on estates over $5 million. All of that would cover the shortfall with a lot left over.

you need to learn composition , no where in your little statement "Only if you righties use it as a noun." did you say or infer that "libbies only use it as an adjective" , hence you once again make my point , thanks in advance

Ol Doc

the answer to your question is, wait for it , you are

fire departments and street repairs are local municipality responsibilities , they are not a ponzi scheme created to give progressives an unlimited slush fund , and since demoncrats have controlled Congress for the majority of the time since it was "cooked up" by the Town Fool FDR demoncrats get most of the blame , that about sums it up

You're welcome, mate!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Used of a different CPI alogorithm that is a bit less generous would also help a bit.. Also use the same less generous CPI for Military Pension and Disability COLA ( both VA and SSI)

The adjust would help decrease the increase in cost that are inflation based and should be one part of mulitple things done to extent the program before you see a benefit pro rata decrease

I also beleive the cap should be removed

BTW -- I would be effected by all this - both military pension and CPI changes and CAP increase, but beleive all need to be done to contribute to get outlays in line with revenue

Plus reduce areas of spending and waste -- been associate with DOD for over 25 years and beleive it their is plently of waste that can be trimmed there

I benefited from the SS deduction holiday of the last 2 years like others, but do not think they should continue this any more -- not truly sure the approach was worth the decrease inputs into SS.

I do beleive some of the interest on the debt payements each year (the 400 billion or so in this) does go to paying for any of the maturing bonds in the OSADI fund.. someone have a factual link on the turnover of these bond payments in the fund... I do think these bonds although a "special class of US bond" do have maturity dates at some point??? can someon point to a link with more details on this that are factual and not spin

thanks

I'm retired Army 1965 @ $150.0/month and now 1300.0/month. The bug in the mil ret and SS is the COLA . Some way, some how this needs to be to funded in some manner. Wth todays retirement rates at a rate far higher than 1965 and unfunded COLA?????????????????? $150.0 to $1300.0 in 40 + years. HELLO

@stoney-3054460 -- Tweaking the calculations for COLAs only reduces outlays - it still allows the purchasing power of the benefits to erode. If the only intent is to 'harm' beneficiaries then don't play political games - just cut the benefits.

A better approach would be for the government to actually control inflation so that the purchasing power of the benefit is protected AND outlays can be reduced.

Military spending is a totally different issue and affects general revenue - which is outside the mandatory spending programs. If you really want to reduce the cost of the military - consolidate the military into a single branch. That eliminates redundancy in command structure - streamlines procurement - and reduces the ability to 'hide' waste.

Nerm, do not forget that at some point almost all of the economist say that inflation will take off with what the fed is doing. This will shorten the life of the fund, even more. For pelosi, reid, liberals, and democrats. Keep pushing granny off the cliff and do nothing. Here is not the so called do nothing that you hit the Republicans with, it is the do nothing party in this case. The unions and pelosi are still saying it is strong. My God!! They shortened the life by 3 more years. The democrats want to do nothing about the issue until it is too late. A little bit of pain now is better than a lot of pain later on. In most cases, I would rather the democrats do nothing, because just about everything they do hurts the United States economy. In this case, they need to do something instead of scaring the crap out of America.

I understand your inflation arguement and agree, but also think the CPI method to put some downward pressure on COLA is warranted as well.. It clearly is part of shared burden

to deal with the whole dedt/deficit and "what programs people want" will require both revenue and spending cuts and as you say policy to control inflation pressures and dollar valuation issue

point is it will take lots of little things to balance the equation - not extremes of tax only or spending cut only

@Mark-384387 -- The 'crisis' is on the general revenue side. Inflation in the economy would cause wages to increase and allow the OASDI trust to continue growing. Allowing the OASDI trust to continue to grow will increase the amount of interest payments from general revenue - income taxes. Redeeming (cashing in) those OASDI bonds will require payment from general revenue - income taxes. Those OASDI bonds do not mature and have a fixed interest rate. Inflation in the economy will not change the interest rate on the bonds and will not change the value of the bonds.

Inflation is held in check at the moment because any increase in inflation will collapse the economy again - resulting in another round of deflation. I do not see that changing anytime soon. At present, inflation is self correcting because too much inflation will trigger deflation.

The economy has reached an inflection point - deflation is the new normal. One out of every two current workers will be eligible to retire over the next 20 years. That averages out to 10,000 per day, 300,000 per month, every month for the next 20 years. Those retiring workers will be switching from wages that vary with inflation - to defined benefits that erode with inflation. If inflation erodes those defined benefits too much - the economy will automatically deflate. Inflation will create a greater demand to liquidate retirement assets on the financial markets - more sellers than buyers will be deflationary, too.

@stoney-3054460 - I agree, the situation is not nearly as bad as the fear mongering presents. Currently the payroll tax rate for SoSec is 6.5 pct. Raising that rate to 6.65 pct improves the situation by around $1 trillion in 20 years. That level of increase is about $5 per month ($60 per year) for someone earning $40,000 per year.

Controlling inflation so that COLAs could be reduced by 1 pct ($18 per month, $216 per year, from an $1800 per month benefit) could improve the situation by around $500 billion in 20 years - without eroding the purchasing power of the benefits.

People seem to forget that we are talking about a 20 year span and the required correction, in today's dollars, is not that large. Controlling inflation is the key to only needing small corrections. With the sheer number of people that will be eligible for benefits over the next 20 years - inflation may be self correcting.

So while SS is running out were spending trillions of dollars fighting a war for people who hate us?!

The only way to 'fix' the problem is by making more revenue available. The President's approach is to call for tax increases. The idea of targeting those making over $1 million is raise awareness that tax revenue is going to be needed - and - eventually everyone will need to contribute to solving the problem.

To 'fix' this problem means everyone is going to have to contribute. Everyone will need to pay more taxes - and - beneficiaries are going to have to accept benefit cuts.

show numbers...

To 'fix' this problem means everyone is going to have to contribute

If every one is going to have to pay then shouldn't you start with the 47% of people that pay little or no taxes each year not the 1% or 3% that are paying 35% 40% of those taxes?

Seems to me the beneficiaries of all this Goverenmtn spending and entitlements is the 47% so why shouldn't they be the ones paying for it?

Oh that's Right the "Rob from the Rich to support the poor in a "lifestyle" they wont go out and earn for themselves" Mentality.

Nerm_L,

your solution: pay more to get less.

I'd rather opt out and take my vested share to do what I wish. The STATE can keep their social security #, they don't own me.

he's staring at the teleprompter waiting for the words to start scrolling

At this point, it is not about 'numbers' - it is about changing the attitude that the government cannot increase taxes. And about the attitude that the government cannot reduce benefits. Until that attitude is changed - the problem is not going to be fixed.

Using current numbers of 55 million beneficiaries and an average benefit of $1,800 per month - a 1 pct reduction in benefits ($18 per month) reduces outlays by $12 billion per year - usual COLAs are 2-3 pct per year. Controlling inflation so that COLAs could be reduced could potentially save $33 billion per year which amounts to $660 billion over 20 years.

Using current numbers of 140 million workers - raising payroll deductions by $9 per month (additional $4.50 per month from workers and $4.50 per month from employers) increases revenue by $660 billion over 20 years.

Combine the two and the curve is bent by $1.2 trillion over 20 years.

The problem is that 80 million additional people will be eligible to retire over the next 20 years and I am not going to go through the effort to account for that.

The point is that small changes now can have a big impact for someone that is 40. That is the same idea as 'saving a little every month' adds up.

David: if you work weather your rich or your poor you pay it so get off the band wagon and smartin up stop listening to the Wealthy they feeding you BS....

David, you are misinformed. The 47% pay no INCOME tax because they don't make enough money to owe any. Everyone who makes a wage pays Social Security and Medicare tax. The 1% pay Social Security tax only on the first $106,800 of their income. So it's actually the 1% who are paying only a small portion of their income to Social Security, not the 47%.

Socil Security was originally set up for a retiring worker to have 5 years of benefits before average death. Their was no SSD. Now people are living much longer than the 5 years but the amount paid in compared to out has stayed about equal. This alone has put a tremendous strain on the SSA. BOTH republican and democratic presidents have let this problem continue as has congress for the last 40 years. Right now, the average SS recipient is making 6k UNDER the poverty line. And you think these people that have paid into this fund for 45 years deserve a pay cut. /sigh
I agree that raising taxes is the wrong way to go, history has shown that lowering taxes actually increases tax revenues. With todays global economy, i'm afraid that we are going to enter an extreme inflationary period that should last 2 to 3 years. This market adjustment will happen within the next 7 years. I have already gotten rid of all my stocks and converted them to silver/gold/platinum. These metals have needed a serious price adjustment for the last 20 years and they still haven't reached peak price.
Global warming will also effect how trade patterns worldwide. Food prices will go up, fast. Severe weather is already effecting changes throughout the ecosphere and it is just going to get worse. Ethanol is killing the feed market for pigs, chicken,and beef.
Good luck everyone and prepare both for yourself and you familys sake.

@Noah - the problem is that the so called 35%-40% is not a REAL "paid" number. Look at Romney - 13%. After their creative tax accountant gets done they don't pay that amount. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else - or they are not too bright.

People on unemployment have the "option" of paying taxes on thier checks or at the end of the year. And do you really want a family making 20,000 a year to have to pay taxes?

Lots of reform needs to go on but placing the burden on the poor is not the solution.

Hey Noah, I love your comment about the 47% who pay nothing. Shows you watch Fox way to much. EVERYONE who works pays 7.625% (or did for FICA and Medicare). Most low income people pay way more in FICA/Medicare than they pay in income taxes. Why? The GOP loves "tax credits"..... That's why those 47% pay no INCOME Tax (that's the word you want)......

Nerm, 1% of americans pay for 40% of all income tax. When will liberals get it through their heads, that taxing is not the answer. You can tax every single millionaire every single penny that they make and you will still not pay off obama's deficit. What does that tell you? You cannot just say raise taxes again. Ryan proposed a plan to help take care of this and the liberal democrats pushed granny off the cliff. It is sad and pathetic that you liberals are not raking pelosi over the coals on this and the democrats. They want to do nothing. The only problem is that by the time they figure this out, it will be too late.

@Mark-384387 -- On our current path, 1% of the population will be paying 100% of the taxes. You can argue all you want and await that outcome - or - we can make small adjustments to avoid that future.

It's up to you.

@ antonio-we haven't heard from Obama because he's busy out spending our money on "more important" things-like rebuilding other countries.

Lacybell, WHO is the original architect of "nation building" (other countries) Why, GW Bush, of course, for anyone who wasn't born yesterday. Did you ever take a look at the scrolling numbers showing the billions flying to the Iraq war and all of it's profiteers?? Probably not, or you wouldn't be making such stupid comments here, which prove your utter lack of the facts as history proves.

antonino

show numbers...

If you're talking about figures to back up raising taxes to save entitlements, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States

I agree that raising taxes is the wrong way to go, history has shown that lowering taxes actually increases tax revenues.

Sorry, but that is false. Revenues have gone down from their potential after the Bush tax cuts (not absolutely, but compared to GDP), and they did nothing to incur good economic growth or create jobs. It used to be true, back when tax rates were twice or (in the case of the wealthy) three times the size that they are now, but with tax rates being the lowest in a half-century, I doubt that it's possible anymore.

I wasn't talking aoubt just federal. State taxes have continued to increase. Look at your states sales tax base as a possible source. I know our sales tax just went up another 1/2 percent on almost everything we buy. They are keeping interest rates artifically low and that bubble is the reason an adjustment is going to come. Once that happens, revenue will increase because the treasury dept. will have to print more money to cover US debt payments. Because of this the dollar will have decreased in value, all bond and debt payments will be reduced because the value of the payment is less.

We currently have $15.7 trillion of national debt. The national debt in 1980 was $907 billion. $0.94 of every dollar of debt has been created over the last 30 years.

Taxes are lower today than 30 years ago. There are fewer restrictive regulations on business than 30 years ago. Subtract security related government operations and the government is smaller than it was 30 years ago.

Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of those thirty years. Republicans controlled one or both houses of Congress for 17 of those thirty years.

Over regulation did not create the debt. Over taxation did not create the debt. The non-security related size of government did not create the debt.

Explain how further reducing regulation, further cutting taxes, further shrinking of government, returning the Republicans to power - is going to be different than what has occurred over the past 30 years. Why is the Republican 'fix' different than more of the same that created the mess in the first place?

Nerm, your liberal answer to everything cannot be tax more, every single time. When will liberals get it, that there is not enough money in taxes? We still by far spend more than you can get from taxes. The bottom line is that we have to stop spending. Your liberal President and democrats are bankrupting out country. It is the answer we get from democrats daily. Whether it is federal, state, local, or some other level, is raise taxes. We have made Americans totally dependent on handouts from the government. We are lazy and have lost the sense of pride for doing for ourselves, due to the federal government handouts. It is pure ignorance or arrogance that makes liberals think that Greece cannot happen to us. Well, the democrats are leading us down the path of Greece. Unless the democrats stop playing their scare game and do nothing game with the deficits, SSI, and Medicare, we are all headed for disaster.

Nerm, most jobs created in our country are from the small business sector. Every time your democrats and obama talk about raising taxes, this includes the small businesses. Sure, the huge corporations use the loopholes to get out of paying taxes. This is partly what needs to be fixed. Part of the problem is that small businesses are not doing any hiring due to your liberals and democrats passing the healthcare bill. Why? Because it adds huge costs on to the businesses. If they have 49 employees, the chances of them expanding is almost none, since if they add even one employee, they have to provide healthcare for all of them. They are not hiring because obama and the dems keep spouting off about higher taxes. This means more taxes for small businesses. obama several months ago suspended hundreds of new regulations that were due to go in to affect, because the costs to businesses would too high with the economy the way it is. Don't forget that obamas EPA has put so many new rules and restrictions on the coal industry, that eventually our electricity will skyrocket. But of course, obama has stated before that he wants our energy costs to skyrocket. There is a President looking out for the lower class and seniors. Who created this mess? Let's talk mortgage crisis. It started with carter and the community reinvestment act. It was reinforced by clinton who told banks, Freddie, and Fannie to loan money to people who were lower income. People who could not afford the houses, in the belief that everyone should own a house. Bush sent people to capital hill at least 17 times to warn them. He was turned back by the dems/barney frank/maxine waters every time. In fact, frank and waters just a couple months before the collapse stated that Fannie and Freddie were in fine shape.
If you take more money out of the job creators pockets, they will not hire. That is what obama and the dems want to do. Even the simplest minds can understand this. What does this say for a democrat party that is not smart enough to understand it.

@Mark-384387 -- So, don't do anything and let it collapse. You are still left with more withdrawals than contributions in both government Social Security accounts and retirement assets invested on the financial markets. You cannot convert half of today's contributors to beneficiaries over the next 20 years and expect the economy to continue as it is. You cannot simply raise retirement ages and expect lower healthcare outlays. You cannot expect retired people to accept lowered benefits and maintain the same level of spending.

You can cut discretionary spending (paid for with income taxes) to zero and it will not change Social Security outlays. The interest owed to the OASDI trust will still need to be paid. The bonds in the OASDI trust will still need to be redeemed. You can reduce Social Security benefits but that only delays the time to pay what is owed to Social Security. You are still going to be required to pay it back.

What is your answer to the problem? Delay benefits so maybe people will die before they can use the benefits? Reduce benefits to delay when the government and private funds run out of money?

The longer the delay - the less time available to fix the problem. That only means the costs will be even higher than now. Fixing the problems is no different than saving for retirement - the earlier you start, the better the retirement outcome.

Nerm, your liberal answer to everything cannot be tax more, every single time.

And Mark, your conservative answer to everything cannot be cut government, every single time. The truth cuts both ways.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

P.S. I would love to be a tax and spend liberal. Much better than being a borrow and spend conservative.

Its screw you now, screw you later. With out any Vaseline!!!

FormerCares> What are the GPS coordinates of the street you have picked out? Since I just retired I'll keep the space warm for you for the next 20 years. My first surprise when I filed for Medicare was that I get to pay more than others for this wonderous "entitlement" - simply because I made too much money last year. Means testing? It already exists to an extent. Not yet for Social Security but certainly for Medicare. But I'm lucky. I'm too old to live until SS is broke. I'm also unlucky. I have a 20 year old college kid who will never know the name of the truck that hit him in a very short while.

So would I, clawback the assets of every Senator and Congressman, and their estates, going back to 1968.

Add the Presidents who allowed it, too.

Harry in Texas> Good idea but there are not enough prison cells available because every single member of Congress and every single President since Roosevelt has contributed to this problem. But it would be nice to see them in prison - after having been convicted of "felony stupid".

You must have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth or in your ass.

Rick, I am always amazed that you and people like you think that. There may be a few people with that as motivation, but it is completely untrue for most people. Your statement says so much more about who you are than it does about anyone else.

Social Security is an enforced retirement savings plan or insurance policy. For many people it is the only way they can or will save for retirement. If everyone made enough to save or if everyone had sense enough to save, it wouldn't be necessary, but that is not the case. For many people that is the only thing that keeps them from having nothing when they are too old to work. I am personally thankful for Social Security, because my track record with the stock market is very poor and I never made enough money to save very much for my retirement. I don't delude myself that it is a freebie from the government. It's not. I put that money aside out of every paycheck, and I am thankful it's there now, when I need it. If the wage cap is raised, Social Security will not run out of money.

You know, what really surprises me is how many people are so "fixated" on getting rid of President Obama that they don't stop and think what will happen if the Republicans are elected....they want to do away with our Social Security, privatize our Medicare, and I just heard about Romney's new health plan....which will completely screw everyone! I don't understand why so many intelligent people can "hate" someone SOOO much that they totally forget what will happen if Republicans take over our country. It's mind boggling to me.....

Mark> It hasn't lifted them out of poverty. It has only enabled them to live in squalor longer. I get the maximum benefit available from SS and it's nowhere near lifting someone out of poverty. Not in California anyway. Fortunately I saved all along too.

Rick-868962

HUH? It seems all it has done is made our elderly dependent upon the government... so they would then vote for the Socialists who pay them to do so.

Do you really think that the elderly can rely on themselves (no offense to seniors out there) like they did when they were in their 30s and 40s??? If you do, then you need to go back to health class. Seniors cannot work like they used to back in their prime. And even if they can work, age discrimination is rampant in this country; who would hire a 56 year-old senior instead of a 24 year-old fresh out of college??? My father tried to get transfers from his job to a better paying one in another government department, but got rejected repeatedly, and I can bet that him being middle-aged was a factor. If I have to be dependent on the government when I'm old, who cares?? Better than being out on the streets being tortured by the elements just waiting for the merciful freedom that is death, huh??

Rick in the Forest

Mark> It hasn't lifted them out of poverty. It has only enabled them to live in squalor longer. I get the maximum benefit available from SS and it's nowhere near lifting someone out of poverty. Not in California anyway. Fortunately I saved all along too.

Not true. Without programs like Medicare and SS, a majority of seniors would either be poor or back in the workforce; and they'll be working in menial jobs thanks to age discrimination. Poverty among seniors has declined by over two-thirds thanks to SS and Medicare. Nowadays, SS is supplemental to things like IRAs and 401ks. Before that, SS was all you got. Even today, cutting SS would damage the economy by throwing millions of seniors into financial disarray. Don't give us this useless entitlement crap because that's what it is; crap. Those programs have greatly helped Americans; cutting or dismantling them will send us back to the days before the New Deal; when seniors had a 30% or more of going below the poverty line. Look up this info and come back with a response. Until then, stop spouting this right-wing entitlement crap.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Didi - I know I will get a boat load of flack for saying this but for many people who hate Obama so much, the reason boils down to one simple fact. He is black. If Jesus himself came down and had a joint news conference with Obama and endorsed him - nothing would change the fact that they just hate him beyond all reason.

Didi and kim, you both are so clueless...REpubs don't want to get rid of SS, they want to reform it. We want to reform Medicare because it's unsustainable as is...Dems had an equal or greater hatred for Obumbo's predecessor and now you're whining about our dislike for Obumbo? Hypocrite....and for you, Kim (race-baiter), I guess in your liberal world where you see race in every frickin' issue, it just can't be possible that we hate Obama for his liberal policies and not his race? I can't stand the guy but it has absolutely nothing to do with his race, it's his failure of leadership, his class warfare, his ineptitude in handling the economy. Believe what you want but you're a dope!

kimH - why why why, do you keep playing the race card?

Small minded liberals falsely accuse everyone that despises this President as a racist. I don't like him because he is a liar, a liar that lies straight to the face of the Americans he is supposedly sworn to serve. I don't like him because he golfs & takes lavish vacations while American soldiers are dying at war. I don't like him because he divides Americans with class warfare, where if you work hard and become successful, you are mocked and attacked by liberals with their hands out. There are so many reasons why I don't like this liar we have as a president, his skin color is not one of them.

Liberals use this propaganda because that is all they have. Pathetic!!!!

jwilson & JD - I don't believe it. None of you give him any credit for anything he does. There is no compromise, there is no attempt to work with him. There is nothing but obstruction, lies and hate at every turn. Some Republicans have openly said that they hope he fails. None of this helps and has succeeded in driving deeper the wedge between us. I am not accusing everyone of having totally racist motivations but I think it plays a huge part in the hatred towards Obama.

I don't like him because he divides Americans with class warfare, where if you work hard and become successful, you are mocked and attacked by liberals with their hands out.

Hahahaha. Allowing the tax rates for the wealthy to go back to Clinton levels is class warfare??? Hell, let's just let them pay no taxes!!! That'll surely bring in the jobs and the growth, never mind that that failed 11 years ago.

I don't like him because he golfs & takes lavish vacations while American soldiers are dying at war.

So did Reagan and FDR and Truman and Eisenhower and every damn president. Remember when Bush took those vacations to his Crawford Ranch during the War on Terror???? Didn't think so.

Enough with your right-wing drivel; America doesn't need it.

KimH in Tea PARTY double speak "reform" means GET RID of. Stop watching Glen Beck and Fox news.

Oops KimH sorry I slammed you. J.Wilson, JD. what I said in #7.12 applies to you.

Ric,

Same here. I don't believe in helping others who won't help themselves. Its like that feeling you get when give a homeless person $5 and watch them spend it on booze.

.

if you were homeless, booze would be looking pretty good to you, too. seriously, you expect them to invest your generous donation with E-trade?

idiot.

Lots of mean people on this board... Tis the Season of the Mean...

100s of billions of dollars are distributed to illegal aliens, fake medicare and social security claims and tens of thousands of people collecting SSI/disability because there to lazy to actually work. Convicted felons are actually encouraged to get social security when they get out of prison and are assisted in helping fill out the paperwork. I know this for fact!!!!! If the gov. would cut back on all the welfare and SSI they pay out to the nonproductive citizens of the country recovery would begin immediately!!!!!

@Chii2 - so you think EVERY poor person is a poor person by choice and does not want to help themselves? Come on. I have a couple of friends that were executives, laid off, can't find a job and have lost everything they have including having to split up their family. One is working as a bartender back to his college job and had to pull both his kids out of college.

Get a life and look at the broader picture not the one that the TPGOP conjures up for fun.

ric & chii,

i agree with revolution. but i would be quite happy to opt out of SS and invest that money as i see fit and to use it when i need it/want it. instead we won't be able to retire and draw SS until were almost 80 and can only draw it for a couple years before we die.

deborah,

not everyone is poor by choice, of course not. everyone has a horror story i'm sure but you need to take it in stride and get through the tough times. the middle class is being dealt a @!$%#ty hand and our govt. is not doing much about it for us. i suggest everyone watch the documentary called "inside job". you can find it at your local video store/red box. it illustrates this point quite nicely.

mj-1451595

You need to do more fact checking before you start bashing a particular group. Fact is that I haven't seen any proposal from so called conservatives that seeks to do away with Social Security but they have tried to do things to make it more solvent so those who depend upon it can still have it when they need it. What plan do you you hear the liberals presenting? The only thing the president has done for Social Security is to take more money away from it with the payroll deduction. Yes, it comes directly out of Social Security and the analysis I have seen indicates it is costing the SS pool several billions of dollars. Does that really make sense to you? Do you really believe he is trying to save Social Security when he is robbing it of needed revenue? So what is his plan to save it, take more money from the rapidly depleting pot?

@aurunner-for you to tell us all to "take in in stride" just shows what a narrowminded person you are. I loved my job, but unfortunately was injured and had two back surgeries. Despite that, I found another job that I could do and worked at it despite the pain until I was rear-ended in a 4 car accident, herniating an additional 6 discs. After months in a wheelchair and now walking with a walker, don't tell me to "talk it in stride". I can't even walk for 1/2 a block. It took me 3 years to get my disability approved. Let's see you go through what I've been through for the last 14 years and see how you "take it in stride". None of my injuries was my fault-I'm not a "druggie" or just released from prison. There are some people who legitimately deserve to receive disability. I've worked at least one, sometimes two jobs at a time since I was 16. I worked full time and went to school full time to get my nursing degree. I'd much rather be working than having to sit at home because I can't walk. Let's see what happens one day when you end up injured through no fault of your own-oh wait-you need to take it in stride and get through the tough times. Jerk.

mj> We have a revolution going. It's called the Tea Party and it's going to bring some fiscal sanity back to our country.

Yeah, cutting taxes and axing benefits for seniors and the poor is fiscal sanity (sarc). The Tea Party is a stupid right-wing organization that claims to be patriotic and pro-America, even though they denounce liberals and progressives like me as Communists and compare the President to Hitler. If that is American, than I would be ashamed to be a citizen of this country. But I know that it isn't; it's the exact opposite of being American. The Tea Party can't do anything right; they bungled up the debt crisis and caused our downgrade. Where were they when Bush raised the debt ceiling seven times??? Where were they when Bush squandered our money in a stupid war against terror??? Why did they immediately form when Obama took office??? Bunch of hypocritical bastards.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO THE DAMN TEA PARTY 2012

Freshieee> You post is too uninformed to even dignify a response but just so you know..........the debt ceiling has been raised time and time again. Not just when one President or another was in office. As to the downgrade.............the rating agencies did not attribute the reduction in the rating to the Tea Party but to the government itself. And where were YOU when Lyndon Johnson effectively took Social Security off the books and moved it into the General Fund when he, a racist Democrat (yes............that's widely known) continued on with the Vietnam War until he lost the confidence of Americans.

Back in LBJ's days, it wasn't uncommon for Democrats to be racists. Democrats used to be conservative until the 1930s, and even into the 1960s many were segregationists. How come the Tea Party came to existence only when Obama went into office??? Are Republicans exempt from being drunken sailors??? And much of the blame from the credit agencies was directed at the Tea Party caucus in the House, which refused a $4 trillion compromise that would have placated the agencies only because it had a sprinkling of tax increases. Sorry mate, but your comeback is an epic fail.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TEA PARTY DESTROYED 2012

I do not get it, so we cannot bailout the Social Security like we bailed out Wallstreet who ran wild with people's investments and retirementes leaving our economy and housing market shattered while their CEO's walked away with millions in bonuses. Social Security was screwed up because the surplus was used to fund two wars (one of them was dumb) instead of raising taxes to fund the wars. So Bush screwed up S.S and now it looks like the problem is the fund itself. Do you want to your full retirement to be in the hands of deregulated wall streeters? I do not think so!!!!!

There WAS NO SURPLUS. Say it with me. NO SURPLUS. Clinton used intergovernmental holdings (Social Security funds) and paid down debt, giving the ILLUSION of a surplus. It was NOT. This is ALL EASILY LOOKED UP. Stop perpetuating the out and out LIE of the surplus. Clinton turned over the keys to the car at a NEGATIVE GDP, the single largest economic downturn indicator. When Bush warned Congress about it, he was told to sit down and shut up by the Democrats, who then accused him of "talking down the economy". Go ahead. Google "Bush talks down the economy" and read the stories. They're from some of your favorite liberal versions of Fox......HuffPo, NY Times, even MSNBC.

Ha, you claim that Clinton handed Bush the keys during a recession, and yet you fail to mention that Bush did the same with Obama. In addition, Bush had the control of Congress for 6 years, and could do anything he wanted. Obama couldn't, mainly because the GOP abused the filibuster, which the Democrats in 2000-2006 did not. Plus Bush had deficits for every one of his years, even when the economy was in respectable shape.

deborah-3074274,

Is your friend living under a bridge or behind a dumpster or perhaps within the thickets along the side of the highways? I didn't think so. Too bad your buddy lost everything, perhaps it is a good lesson in life to re-evaluate their situations. If they were properly prepared for the lay off then the misery wouldn't have been so severe. What I was talking about are those individuals who sit there in the streets begging for money and looking pathetic. Your Christian virtues taught me to be humble, yet the society that this doctrine flourishes in is less than apologetic about their teachings of generosity and humility. Perhaps your friend would be better off as a Buddhist monk hmmm?

There's a reason for that... it's what they do to try to distract people from the REAL issues.

Squirrle!!!

Wrong. "Here's your sign...."

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Its a benefit that has helped millions of Seniors and Disabled and people pay into it. It does not effect or take away from the debt.

It's not a Pyramid Scheme, it's an insurance policy. All insurance policies work the same way.

Not true.. I am not denying the benefit but social security works like any ponzi scheme. The first in get paid..the last in get screwed and the scheme can only continue as long as there are enough new players at the bottom of the pyramid.

Heartlight..insurance is a pyramid scheme too. If it wasnt..why do the insurance companies cry when a hurricane hits? all of a sudden they have no money?? SCAM!! millions pay and only a few people benefit.

UrbanCow: nope, Social Security works like any "insurance plan." You pay into it when you don't need the benefits and the benefits are there for you when you need them. A Ponzi scheme promises enormous returns for little investment; Social Security does nothing of the kind.

WRONG!! Insurance means you get the full expected payout. SS is cutting MY benefits by 25% ,50% or MORE when i retire? That is NOT playing fair! That is ILLEGAL

UrbanCow: nobody is saying that you won't get the full expected payout. What we are saying is that--without changes--after 2033 the fund will only be able to pay out 75% of the expected benefits. No one seriously believes we won't make changes between now and then. I'm not sure I understand at all why people get so frantic about a program that's funded until 2033. No other federal program gets funded that far in advance. The US military is only funded through the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, but we don't see headlines saying "Army to go broke in June unless Congress acts" do we?

Do you really think charities can handle 55 million people flooding into their systems?????

Thats very true Lisa, the only one that can help us is the Federal Government. Don't Give Social Security, Disability and Medicare-Medicaid to the States. Take Tennessee for example, they took their Education Block Grants and used them to pay for Remodeling of the Governors Mansion.

And thats my Opinion.

lisa,

out of that 55million number, i'm assuming that most of them paid into the system and yes they expect something back when they can retire. so, obvioulsy 55 million people wouldn't need charity to retire... if there was no SS. but on the other hand you would have to hope that people would also invest some money into their own retirement too.... and if they didn't too bad when it comes retirement time.

@someguy-I paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old-why should I not be able to collect MY MONEY now that I can't walk without a walker or sit for more than 15 minutes without my legs going numb?

To be more accurate, they DO pay SS tax, but they don't pay any on the income OVER the cap.

President Obama tried to remove the top limit on Social Security so that even the Billionares and Trillionares would have to pay but noooo the Republican't Congress Blocked all efforts to remove the $110,000 Ceiling.

Shame on the republican't corporate teabaggers... shame on them.... Tis indeed the Season of the Mean!!!!!

and thats my opinion

And why should they? Someone making more than $110,100 per year in income will be able to pay for their own retirement without the need for a SS check. Do you just want them to pay more in to make up for the people who haven't put enough in for the benefits they take out?

Oh because those making more than $110, 100 per year will not collect SS? WRONG. the rich don't get richer by giving money away EVER.

@hiap-just because they make all that money it doesn't mean they won't apply for their benefits when the time comes.

Maybe some of you live where $110,000 makes you rich. That is not the case in very expensive Maryland. They tax you to death here.

BILL- you are making WAY too much sense for Congress to understand it. Good post.

Bill: I have to agree; however, there was an earlier post that pointed out that any monies paid BACK to the Social Security fund would come out of taxpayer's money.....so, we'd just end up paying ourselves back. Too bad we can't take it from their personal bank accounts????

I agree Bill, THEY have to pay back the monies taken out. Also, people on SSDI should be subject to random drug testing-just like those of us who work to pay into social security. Fail the drug test and I lose my job, why should I support someone who milks the system? Don't get me wrong, I have a friend who's eldest daughter is physically and mentally handicapped and receives assistance from SSDI-that is what it is meant for tho. Illegals and felons should not get SSDI either (unless the felon at some point worked and paid in). I know lots of people who are elderly now that came to this country legally, worked hard, became citizens and collected retirement benefits when they got old enough-but if you don't follow the rules you don't get to play in the sandbox with the rest of us!!!

You know Bob that plan you have is amazing....The problem is that the way it will occur will be one of three ways. 1) Violently 2) Slowly and painfully or 3) None of the above. C being my prime pick, will probably occur since no one seems to give a damn. As long as its not them and it's someone else it does not matter so f-uck it.

I am so fed up with both Democrats and Republicans I can't see straight. They'll all so full of BS it isn't funny and the same ones keep getting re-elected to office. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have representation in Washington that really, truly cared about the people in this country?

I agree to drug testing at any time as long as I am not expected to pay for it.

I have an idea Java Fiend drug testing for everyone, or drug testing by court order, convicts, and those going into the military, the police force, or anyone whose job requires that they arrest people. How dare you or anyone treat those on disability like they never worked or they are living it up at tax payer expense.

No, there'd still be a problem. But it probably would have came about a decade or two from now.