The Dems are going after Social Security (wage, health care, premium)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by LauraC

No surprise. Especially the part about sucking in Republicans to share the blame. He's already been on the attack against Medicare. You can sum up his feelings about the elderly as follows: You are no longer a productive member of society so we aren't going to spend hardly any money on you. Just die already and get out of our progressive way.

The so-called cuts in Social Security are cuts in per-unit cost of treatment not cuts in covered services. For an individual, the same or better care would be available at a lower cost.

Originally Posted by LauraC

Honestly though, with regard to Social Security, I just thought he was going to raise the SS eligibility age by about 5 - 8 years.

What caused you to think that? There is zero chance of such a change being made.

[Casper in Dallas]

I would be happy to opt out of SS, the second they give back my money.
Casper

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

The CBO estimates, more expenses in 2010 than income (there goes your $150B surplus argument)

If you are going to cite CBO, how about you link to CBO instead of some blog post by dopey-ass Michele Bachmann.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And that trust fund.. is filled with IOUS's.. Its not CASH.. (there goes your trust fund balance)

Have you heard of a thing called fiduciary responsibility? When you are the trustee of a couple of trillion dollars that you won't need for some number of years, you don't sit on it as cash unless you are looking to see a major lawsuit brought against you. And of course, what you dismiss as IOU's are actually US Treasury securities, the safest, most secure investment vehicle in the history of the world, and the standard against which the risk of every other investmnet vehicle is measured.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Seriously, have you even followed along?

Hopefully, no one followed you down all these wrong paths.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Actually the balance in ones savings account are an IOU, but checking accounts are indeed piggy banks.

Really? So the reserve requirement on demand deposits is 100%? Do I have that right?

Originally Posted by pghquest

IOU's backed by the "Full Faith and Credit of the US Government" is still an IOU, the faith of the government is a liability and NOT a balance as you previously claimed because its SPENT....

The proceeds of all securities sales are spent. That's why they are issued to begin with -- to raise money. For a supposed financial whiz, you certainly don't have such a good grip on things.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

I would be happy to opt out of SS, the second they give back my money.
Casper

Well, would you expect to get all your premiums back if you decided to cancel your automobile or homeowners insurance?

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by saganista

False. There is no signficant problem with Social Security. There is a glimmer of a problem 40-50 years out that while being small is still being made worse by the drop in payroll taxes this recession is causing, but it is nevertheless easily resolved whenever we choose to resolve it.

There is nothing inately wrong in Medicare either. The problems are in the health care system that Medicare is connected to. Without health care reform, Medicare cannot be reformed. It's as simple as that. With effective controls on health care costs, balancing Medicare is suddenly made a relatively simple task. Those who believe that health care is dead might want to rethink that idea in this light.

False? So when they say that medicare and social security will become insolvent (this is the CBO, Saggy) and that medicare and social security account for over half of the federal budget currently, that they are just making it up? Saggy, you are pretty good at making stuff up, so I am excited to hear what lies you will have to refute the CBO. Saggy, you and your beltway spinners have to talk to these guys in the CBO and have them stop putting out all these facts, as it is making you liberal morons look bad. Just have them do a little "global warming" data treatment, so it will fit with all the crap you are spinning.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3982&type=0

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

With "effective controls on healthcare costs"? Just how do you propose doing that, Saggy? They have not been able to do that with Medicare since its inception. Now, 40 years later, magical savings are going to be found. How can that be done, Saggy? If it could be done, why the hell was it not done earlier? Answer- Because it can't.

Saggy, did you realize that for a medicare patient we are paid one fourth what we are paid for a patient with private insurance? Many providers have stopped taking medicare altogether, as they lose money on every medicare patient they see. We still see them (for now), but when the reimbursement falls further, we will no longer see them, just like public aid patients. You can "cut costs" all you want, but you cannot force providers to see patients they do not want to see. Let's see.......... you are against tort reform.........just where are you going to get all these savings?

This reminds me of the brilliance of the feds in healthcare. The VA system, in response to long delays to see patients in certain specialties, DEMANDED that providers see patients within 30 days of the referral. In compilance with this DEMAND, neurosurgical services around the US refused to see any Vets sent to them, as they could not satisfy the requirement. That made the bean counters happy. Now we cannot get anything other than emergent neurosurgical care for our patients, just to be in compliance with this BS rule. That is your federal government at work. Few, if any, patients can get in to see a neurosurgeon in private practice within 30 days anyway. Brilliant. I would bet you have similar "brilliant solutions", Saggy.

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by saganista

LOL! Social Security is the most successful social insurance system in the history of the world. It has provided four generations of our elderly with basic financial security in their elder years and there is absolutely no reason why it should not do the same for many more generations to come.

What many fail to realize is social security is not just financial security for
old people.

I am not sure of all the rules but I think I am pretty close.

John is 32 years old, married with two young children when he develops a brain tumor and dies or suffers a heart attack and can no longer work.

What about his wife and children? Perhaps they should live in a tent city like they do in Haiti? Would that make you happy?

John has been working since 1997 and his income was as follows:

1997 $15,000
1998 $20,000
1999 through 2007 $30,000
2008 and 2009 $$40,000

For the disability and survivors estimates that follow, we assumed you became disabled or died in 2010. We did not use earnings after 2010 in calculating these estimates.

John's monthly disability check would be $1,459.00 per month.and in addition to this John would receive an additional $1,127.00 for each child up to a maximum of $2,764.00 per month for $33,154.00 per year. That's would be $31,032.00 per year until the child graduated from high school (not sure if college is covered).

If John died his wife would receive $1,127.00 plus $1,127.00 per month for each child up to a maximum of $2,764.00 for an income of $2,764.00 per month for $33,154.00 per year.

When John's wife reached full retirement age her social security retirement benefit would be $1,502.00 per month.

It isn't millions but it is a lot and would insure John's family has at least the basics.

See the social security benefit calculator here.

My challenge is if you are 32 years old do some disability insurance shopping and find out what a policy paying $2,764.00 per month for 12 years (kids are young) followed by $1,459.00 per month for the rest of your life would cost. Also have this indexed to cost of living raises.

The cost of this insurance would stagger you if you could get it but you can't. Disability only extends for a few years... I think two years and that is high enough. This, as I said if you could get it at all, would be a huge monthly premium.

So if you are young, married, have children and pissed off about us boomers remember you could end up depending on social security next month should something awful happen. But awful things sometimes happen to wonderful people.

I wonder how many 20 or early 30 something married guys with children to support even know they have this.

Now let's talk about my impending retirement.

I've been working for over 40 years and over that time I paid in over $100,000 in social security taxes and between self employment taxes and taxes my employer paid the total put in on by behalf is around $200,000.

I wonder how I would have come out if I had put that money in a money market since the mid 60's?

Below is a scan of my latest benefit statement.

http://www.zewg.net/dump/photo/socialsecurity.jpg (broken link)

I could start collecting $1,481 a month this year if I wanted to.

The average age of death in America is now 78 years old. For women, it's 81 years old, and for men its 77. Both rates show Americans are living a year longer than the 2005 results.

If I lived to 77 I would collect $266,580. Something tells me I would have done much better than making just $66,580 on my $200,000 investment had I deposited the money in a money market/mutual fund account since the mid 60's.

I am a baby boomer and somehow I am greedy?

But I don't think I was ripped off because with my family I always knew disability and death benefits were there for us, more so for my family, should they ever be needed.

FYI I am in good health and plan to work (and pay into the social security system) until I am 70 so I get the maximum amount of $2,723 per month. If I live to 77 I will collect $228,732 just $28,732 more than I "invested" all those years.

Why would I do such a thing as work to 70? Because I like working and if I die before my wife my wife would continue to receive her social security ($900 per month she was a stay at home mom) or receive my social security whichever is higher. Should my wife live to age 81 or older it is important to me she gets the maximum amount available.

Baby boomers didn't engineer the social security mess it started with the politicians in charge before I was born and I am all for fixing it.

We need to apply a means test. Someone with an unearned income of $300,000 a year does not need to collect social security. This is not unfair, social security was never set up as a "retirement fund" it was always meant to be a supplement or safety net. I would go with something like for every $2 unearned income $1 was subtracted from benefits.

That's my two cents on social security.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by saganista

Well, would you expect to get all your premiums back if you decided to cancel your automobile or homeowners insurance?

Not the same, I get money deducted every paycheck on the promise by the government that I will be able to use the benefit I am paying for. If they were a private orgainzation and I paid for something and the company did not deliver I would sue the pants off em and I would win. With the govenment; don't pay on the promise made and watch your JOB disappear and yes there would be legal action taken against the government, talk about a class action case, WOW. As I said, I would be happy to opt out, don't need it to retire anyway, but a deal is a deal and if they will not repay what was put in then they broke a binding contract and they will pay, one way or the other.
Casper

[saganista]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

False? So when they say that medicare and social security will become insolvent (this is the CBO, Saggy) and that medicare and social security account for over half of the federal budget currently, that they are just making it up?

This is what you (not CBO) posted that was false --
Let's face it. Medicare and Social Security will have to be deramatically cut or eliminated to avoid insolvency.

Meanwhile, there is no reason to treat Social Security and Medicare together, as they are two separate authorities that function in two distinct environments. There are no major problems looming in Social Security unless, as I said, this recession lasts a decade or so.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Saggy, you and your beltway spinners have to talk to these guys in the CBO and have them stop putting out all these facts, as it is making you liberal morons look bad.

LOL. I talk to CBO people on quite a regular basis. Your problem is you don't understand what they are saying, so you let some right-wing disinformation specialist tell you what they said instead. Bad idea.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

With "effective controls on healthcare costs"? Just how do you propose doing that, Saggy?

Health care reform, Doctor. It's in your future. Learn to cope.

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

Shamus Cooke: The Democrats are Coming After Social Security


Does this concern any of you or does it not come as a surprise?

Sounds something like Paul Ryan's plan. He isn't a Democrat:

Paul D. Ryan: A GOP Road Map for America's Future - WSJ.com