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.
I would like to ask Moderator cut: snip why according to my morning newspaper, why there will be no raise in benefits for most seniors.
It seems there is money for nonsense in the Middle East - billions of dollars and supports illegal immigrants getting free health care, and other benefits!
What about WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Last edited by Keeper; 03-28-2011 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: Take it to the political forum if you want to bash a political party
Medicare rise could mean no raise for Social Security (http://www.heralddemocrat.com/hd/News/A2233-BC-US-SocialSecurity-CO-3rdLd-Writethru-03-27-1399 - broken link)
To keep this in this forum.. no bashing of any political party. This is about SS retirement and Medicare.
I would like to ask Moderator cut: snip why according to my morning newspaper, why there will be no raise in benefits for most seniors.
It seems there is money for nonsense in the Middle East - billions of dollars and supports illegal immigrants getting free health care, and other benefits!
What about WE THE PEOPLE!!!
The above post is an example of what is wrong with this country. There is an implicit assumption that the government is supposed to maintain us at a certain level of comfort, which is to say an entitlement mentality. So, Bluediamond, you are apparently talking about Social Security retirement benefits. If so, don't you know that Social Security is a self-sustaining program which is funded by payroll taxes earmarked for that purpose? The government doesn't just throw money into it to make seniors happy.
Let's analyze your phrase "WE THE PEOPLE". You are talking about seniors, and I am one (67). So are you saying that seniors are the people and younger people are not? If we seniors are to get more, as you advocate, then who will pay for it? I'll tell you who: WE THE PEOPLE, which includes everybody, young, old, and middle-aged.
You say that certain federal expenditures are wasteful and not worth it. Well, there's something we can agree on, but I don't see that as an argument for pumping general tax revenue into Social Security. You made your own bed by arriving at a point where you depend on Social Security alone (if that's the case); now it's time to accept the consequences of your own bad decisions and faulty planning and lay in that bed instead of bellyaching about it as if someone owes you better.
Last edited by Keeper; 03-28-2011 at 09:13 AM..
Reason: edited quote
That would be fine Escort if the gov't in years past hadn't siphoned SS surplus for other things. There are also a lot of women who never worked because at the time it was up to the man to make the money. Also it is a lot harder for some of us especially if we have lost a spouse or were never married. I know I do OK but it would be easier if there were 2 incomes instead of only 1.
Alan Greenspan Linked to Social Security Funding Problem by Economist - Citybizlist South Florida (http://southflorida.citybizlist.com/6/2011/2/25/Alan-Greenspan-Linked-to-Social-Security-Funding-Problem-by-Economist.aspx - broken link)
Quote:
Greenspan was instrumental in getting the 1983 payroll tax hike enacted into law, and he then watched silently as the Reagan administration siphoned the surplus revenue into the general fund, where part of it was used to replace the lost revenue resulting from the unaffordable Reagan income-tax cuts. Smith does not believe the tax hike could have been enacted, if the public had known that it would serve as a backdoor source of revenue for the general fund and be used to help fund the tax cuts and two wars
Thanks for your informative post, Keeper. I was aware of the fact that the Social Security surplus cash flow went for all those years into effectively hiding the full extent of the federal budget deficits and that now general tax revenue will have to go into redeeming the special treasury bonds as the SS cash flow goes negative, and I don't like it either. However, I continue to stand by what I wrote in my post #4 above.
That would be fine Escort if the gov't in years past hadn't siphoned SS surplus for other things. There are also a lot of women who never worked because at the time it was up to the man to make the money. Also it is a lot harder for some of us especially if we have lost a spouse or were never married. I know I do OK but it would be easier if there were 2 incomes instead of only 1.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this "siphoning" did occur my question is "so what"?
Because one bad decision was made 30 years ago do we give seniors an increase in benefits that probably isn't justified by the consumer price index? Do we take the approach that its alright to eventually bankrupt social security so long as the people in the earliest part of the baby boom generation get 100% of all the benefits that they think they are owed by society? I don't think so.
Social Security was never intended to be a Santa Claus for the poor elderly in this country. It was intended as an income supplement not an income replacement. There actually would be money to raise social security benefits this year if Medicare premiums weren't going up. The high cost of medical care is an issue that no one in America wants to address. Too many people out there just want THEIR medical care paid for 100% whether it includes organ transplants for senior citizens or cancer medications that prolong life only a couple of months at enormous cost. What is really needed is some kind of systemic reform that rations that care which is highly expensive and prolongs life only a short time period.
If you wonder why your not getting a raise in social security benefits its because of the cost of your medical care. Take your choice. Make a selection. However, its time to stop pretending we can afford everything we want as a country.
Last edited by markg91359; 03-28-2011 at 10:08 AM..
Basically the COLA under the law is controlled by a index . It wasn't even pormised in original SS;so some years something and some years nothing as its not a raise like most COL provsions in pensions.
The above post is an example of what is wrong with this country. There is an implicit assumption that the government is supposed to maintain us at a certain level of comfort, which is to say an entitlement mentality. So, Bluediamond, you are apparently talking about Social Security retirement benefits. If so, don't you know that Social Security is a self-sustaining program which is funded by payroll taxes earmarked for that purpose? The government doesn't just throw money into it to make seniors happy.
Let's analyze your phrase "WE THE PEOPLE". You are talking about seniors, and I am one (67). So are you saying that seniors are the people and younger people are not? If we seniors are to get more, as you advocate, then who will pay for it? I'll tell you who: WE THE PEOPLE, which includes everybody, young, old, and middle-aged.
You say that certain federal expenditures are wasteful and not worth it. Well, there's something we can agree on, but I don't see that as an argument for pumping general tax revenue into Social Security. You made your own bed by arriving at a point where you depend on Social Security alone (if that's the case); now it's time to accept the consequences of your own bad decisions and faulty planning and lay in that bed instead of bellyaching about it as if someone owes you better.
Just FYI, I am not a Senior, but down the road in twenty years I will be. I am not in this group and by the by, I am not depending on Social Security, but I do feel sorry for those that do.
Just FYI, I am not a Senior, but down the road in twenty years I will be. I am not in this group and by the by, I am not depending on Social Security, but I do feel sorry for those that do.
Thanks for the clarification. Interesting. The way your original post was worded, I would have bet money you were also a senior. Actually, I also feel sorry for people who are in a jam, but I stand by my earlier comments.
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.
