Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the difference is that they do not pay in and their benefits are not ried to wqhat they paid in. If so many would get zero.SS;Medicare are much ifferent programs than pure entitlements that are paid out of teh geenral fund. manything have changed in which perosn do get benefits having not paid the prescribed moneys into the fund. Its bascailly a trust fund which the otyhers never were.It should agin become a retirement trust fund but instead politican decide to do many other thongs with thew fund rather than pass it off o the gemeral revenues. Cettainly governamnt has no entitlementthat they government has the right to borrow excusively which would be illegal in any other trust fund. The governamnt uses the money and issues IOUs to the fund.
I'll need to interpret your post in order to do so. My apologies in advance if I mis-quote you.
(1) Texdav: Social Security and Medicare are not welfare programs because payments are tied to the amount paid in by the future beneficiaries.
Let me break this out by program.
With Medicare, there's no correlation between amount paid in and benefits received. Everyone receiving Medicare gets differing benefits according to his or her need, not according to how much a recipient paid in the past.
By your own yardstick Medicare is therefore a government-run social welfare program.
With OASDI (aka 'Social Security), the correlation between amount paid in and benefits received also takes into account when you opt to receive benefits. Choosing to begin receiving benefits at 62 means a significantly lower benefit payment than choosing to begin receiving benefits at 70.
Longevity of life also makes a difference. If you're a black male, your life expectany is 70; if you're a white female, your life expectany is 80. White females receive 10 more years of OASDI and Medicare benefits than black males even though they may have both paid the same amount in payroll taxes over their working careers.
In addition, benefits paid to the disabled and to surviving spouses with children are base upon current income, not total payments. It's possible for a recipient to receive much more out of OASDI than was paid into it. I've got a brother-in-law who, due to being diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic at age 35, will receive 100% OASDI benefits for the rest of his life. Because of his illness, he wasn't able to work after age 25 - he's getting 35+ years of benefits for about 5 years of payments.
While amount of taxes paid is one factor in calculating the amount of OASDI benefits, it's far from the only factor. It's also probable that the total amount of benefits received will exceed the total amount of payroll taxes paid.
However, I will grant that OASDI is a government-run social insurance program and not a social welfare program, although I personally find the distinction between the two to be very small.
(2) Texdav: Welfare programs are paid out of the general fund; Social Security and Medicare are paid out of a trust fund.
So what?
A different accounting methodology doesn't make for a differentiation between different forms of government social welfare programs.
In other words: nice red herring.
(3) Texdav: The Federal Government takes funds from the Social Security Trust Fund and issues IOU's for the funds taken.
Again, so what?
This statement, while certainly a topic for a debate, doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the nature of whether or not the OASDI and Medicare are government social programs.
Apparently, red herring is on sale at Texdav's local grocery store.
It was so out of line I could not get past the first section. I skimmed through and realized what a hateful article it was.
The old people in America are not the problem. Many of us lived conservative lives and have money in the bank which seems to be a lot different than this present generation. If we didn't have, who would you be borrowing from to buy your groceries with a credit card. I live in a smaller house than most of you and it is paid for too.
Why do the young now begrudge the older people getting benefits for what they have been paying into for years. We are not the problem. This country's problem is the thousands of illegals that are taking jobs many of you need and the government is paying for them to have things that neither the young or old get. The pockets that are being filled are the companies that hire them for nothing. They can work for that nothing because government programs are being given them and the rich companies are controlling what congress does about it.
Tell the government to send these illegals home and the state of OUR country will improve immediately like France and England is already doing. You can't have that many freeloaders and expect to survive. I am not a freeloader when I collect very little after paying in a lot.
My sister and many others have been paying into Social Security and died shortly after she had worked and retired from two companies. I doubt that many will ever receive the amount in benefits that they have paid in over the years. Then think about those who are getting benefits and have never paid a dime into social security or taxes. Having babies should not be a career.
Your question is "Are old people bankrupting America" and the answer is, "No we are not."
Great post. The elephant in the room on Capitol Hill is illegal immigrants, not the elderly. Take the estimated 30 million illegals and cut them off from free healthcare, public assistance, and their burden on the education/public school system and prisons while not paying taxes while taking jobs from Americans and watch how fast they STOP trying to get in. Of course no politician wants to commit political suicide by going after illegals, especially since some of them found a way to get elected with illegal votes that came from illegal immigrants and/or their families who live here.
The myth that they are taking jobs that Americans don't want is just that, a myth! They have taken over jobs in construction, trucking, landscaping, restaurants., etc. Some were good paying jobs that they are willing to work for half the pay, and in some cases since they work for less, they take jobs from Americans who need them. I have friends and family who have been directly affected by this, so don't try to say they are ALL here working their fingers to the bone for pennies on the dollar. If you think they aren't finding ways to take advantage of free health care and education, then you are naive at best.
Illegal immigration costs California alone about $10 billion per year.
I agree that insurance companies, banks, and corporations have drained our economy as well, but you can't point your finger at seniors who served in wars, paid their taxes, and made this country what it is without first addressing the issue of "PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELONG HERE" first!
I wonder if recipients of public funded pensions would relinquish them in order to save the country from collapse.
All those pensioners, ex-military, ex-police, SocSec...
Would the recipients of welfare relinquish their entitlements to save the country?
Would the government relinquish power it gains, via "voluntary" socialism?
What do you think?
Should we be:
[] Cynical?
[] Pessimistic?
[] Optimistic?
Based on human nature, I would think all beneficiaries would hang on to the public teat, regardless of the consequences. And those in power, would stand at attention, as the Ship of State slid beneath the proverbial waves.
The only elderly working to bankrupt us are the older Wall Street Executives, financiers and gamblers that financed hedge funds and the mortgage swindle. The rest of us are just trying to survive.
All of these government “welfare” programs were instituted because the private financial sector is prone to taking workers money and gambling with it until the casino goes broke. Then the financial winners get to keep the small investors money and let the retirees starve while the winners get to do it all over again.
This part of the private sector is raw theft and the small investors must be backed up by the government. The government is sometimes inept but the private financial sector is always inimical. They want you money and could care less about your fate.
The irony of the debate is that most of the costs of Obama's plan will burden the old. The Medicare program will have funding cut by $500 billion over 10 years. The excise tax on 'cadillac' insurance plans will be a tax on those with high premiums which are primarily those individual plans covering people age 55 and older, especially those with preexisting conditions.
I wonder if recipients of public funded pensions would relinquish them in order to save the country from collapse.
All those pensioners, ex-military, ex-police, SocSec...
Would the recipients of welfare relinquish their entitlements to save the country?
Would the government relinquish power it gains, via "voluntary" socialism?
What do you think?
Should we be:
[] Cynical?
[] Pessimistic?
[] Optimistic?
Based on human nature, I would think all beneficiaries would hang on to the public teat, regardless of the consequences. And those in power, would stand at attention, as the Ship of State slid beneath the proverbial waves.
If history is any guide and I think it is, (read Generations by Strauss and Howe) the boomers will be more willing to reduce their draw of society than previous generations. They are already heavy into volunteerism since they want to be remembered for changing the world, not bankrupting it.
What do you want to do, kill them? Throw them in the ovens? Make them soylent green? Deprive them of healthcare by rationing it?
Being old is not like being black or disabled. Everybody will be old someday. In fact, if life expectancy ages keep rising, some of today's twenty year olds will be older for a lot longer period of time than the elderly are today. I suggest the twenty year olds step off a cliff now and save the three year olds some money further down the road.
..i am hier to learn english..am european...i read most of all the answers hier...but i noticed something..almost nobody (i did not read all the post) mentione the wars..very seldom wars are mentioned...i mean,if you mention illegals,old people,credit companies and so on...why not the wars???
i do not get that,since i am in usa,americans are "afraid" to mention wars..why you americans never mention the wars????how much cost do the wars cause?example navy selfe defense in usa over 160 billions,more then 13 countries navy defense together...so people,what about wars???did they really cost nothing?
That is a reasonable point, about the wars. But the fact is, our wars don't really cost very much. Except for the munitions and other military hardware that is destroyed in the prosecution of war, the money that is spend mostly gets recirculated back into our economy. The big profiteers with war contracts receive billions of dollars to make jets, uniforms, rations, computers, but that money creates jobs or is re-invested in other ways by the military/industrial complex, and remains wealth in our economy. If we pay 200,000 troops $25,000 a year, that's $5-billion in wages, that gets spend stateside by the soldier and his family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
