The solution to Medicare running out of money is to give everybody free healthcare. That way nobody needs Medicare. See how easy it is? Just ask Hillary or Barry.

The_Gallant_Gallstone: BMFPitt: 2017 is the date that really matters

We all know that 2021 is the date that really matters.

Sealab will be complete then.

/also looking forward to 2050
//Newspeak should be all the rage


Don't count on it. We got dicked on the monolith already.

Ha! Ha!

My retirement plans include dropping dead at work, age 75.

iaazathot: Golly if we only had an extra TRILLION dollars we could use to fix it, but where could that money have gone????

It's not like we ever really had that money, either...

iaazathot: Golly if we only had an extra TRILLION dollars we could use to fix it, but where could that money have gone????


It went to make your grandfather "regular" again, and a couple titanium hip replacements.

mypalmike: We should get rid of SS. That way, the people who didn't plan will be destitute and homeless on the streets of this country. And they would increasingly need to use hospitals, placing an additional burden on an already strained system. My quality of life would certainly be far better if the country were littered with old, homeless sick people. Because, you know, I know one person who abuses SS.

No, silly!! We burn them for fuel.

/humans - the renewable resource!

FarktheNavy: My grandfather retired in 1964 and went on SS after paying a few thousand dollars into the system. In the nearly 40 years he received benefits until his death just shy of 100 years of age, he received several hundreds of thousands of dollars of SS benefits. My father died just before he was going to start getting social security... and his 'investment' just went into the void.

It was an honorable thing for your father to help pay for the support of his father and take nothing in return. So, your Grandfather's name was "Void"? How odd.

Fecacacophany: No, silly!! We burn them for fuel.
/humans - the renewable resource!

Too much pollution. I hate the smell of burning old people in the morning.

PirateKing: Ha! Ha!

My retirement plans include dropping dead at work, age 75.

Finally, someone speaking sense. Thanks for taking one for the team! :)

I'm_A_Genius_In_France: FarktheNavy: My grandfather retired in 1964 and went on SS after paying a few thousand dollars into the system. In the nearly 40 years he received benefits until his death just shy of 100 years of age, he received several hundreds of thousands of dollars of SS benefits. My father died just before he was going to start getting social security... and his 'investment' just went into the void.

It was an honorable thing for your father to help pay for the support of his father and take nothing in return. So, your Grandfather's name was "Void"? How odd.

I see what you did there! :)

I thought this topic ran out of Kleenex the last time it was brought up.. I guess I was wrong.

"whaaa, my parents / grandparents / whatever ruined everything". STFU already.

kab: I thought this topic ran out of Kleenex the last time it was brought up.. I guess I was wrong.

"whaaa, my parents / grandparents / whatever ruined everything". STFU already.


Sure, just hurry up and die.

libbynomore2: chaos35 2008-03-25 09:35:03 PM
TrixieDelite: jbc: Lorelle: We Boomers have been paying into S.S. for decades.


The problem there is that *you* were were a part of around 30 people paying in for every 1 person collecting. The demand on you personally was much less than today with the ratio now around 3 workers to every one retiree. Soon btw, there will be more people collecting than paying in. Yeah that sounds fair.

Oh, and when you were working, you were forced to buy percription drugs for your parents and grandparents. Something you expect of your kids and grand kids in addition to the outrageous burden of having to pay your retirement.

Your generation is truly among the most selfish in history if you cannot see how unfair and unreasonable this is.

Okay, I'm getting this (thanks Libby, your posts are frequently highly comprehensible).

Yes, we boomers paid in for oldsters at a ratio that is different than what you're facing (nothing like 30 to 1, though, dear). Your math and history are just a tad off - but the general point is a good.

Thing is, we boomers are facing the identical same problem. Remember, there is a ceiling to SS taxes - and the rate is the same for all of us. You don't pay any more than I do - and unless they do up the age of retirement (and your generation is already older, on average, when it starts working than we boomers were), it's going to be the same amount of personal contribution.

We are all paying, right now for non-boomers and their healthcare - not our own. The very first boomers just started drawing SS this year, and of course, the big peak is yet to come. They're not going to raise the age again, but they are going to limit the number and type of prescriptions you can get - they're already doing that. SS is dictating just how much healthcare one can get, per person, via SS and it is declining, so that my parents (who are very old) get less than they used to. Still, they did have a retirement account and they are able to pay the difference (they have lots and lots of prescriptions, too).

My social security draw is predicted to be $110 a month. My mother gets $600 a month and never held a full time job. She worked part-time for 15 years. I've worked full time for 39 years - and I'll get one-sixth of what she does. There are several factors involved in my low draw, but the number of people in my generation is a factor.

Now, if you want more SS - then the solution is to have more kids, get them into the workplace, etc. There is no "using up" of a fund - call SS and ask them. There is no fund and there never was. SS is funded by current contributions. Hence, if all of you Xers work less, we boomers get less - and if your own kids work more, you get more. Teach 'em to work early and hard, and to pay taxes and you'll do fine.

But don't go into hysterics about how it is worse for you all, when it is precisely the same. Unless, of course, even fewer children are born, proportionately, than the difference between the boomers and Gen X. There are indeed way too many of us boomers, and I fully expect to have to fund my own healthcare, if I get any. I've pretty much known that since college - just like you.

I do understand that you would not want to see an increase in either the ceiling for SS or its rate - and I'll vote right alongside you to try and make sure that doesn't happen. I do agree that at least half the boomers, however, would sell your soul to get their own healthcare, and would vote to increase SS rates once they are out of the workplace themselves. That is indeed detestable, and if that's what the wailing is about, I'm on your side there.

However, alienating a bunch of people who might stand beside you on this issue by making it about age is not good politics. Remember when Bush suggested that some portion of SS taxes actually be put into a fund? How did your representatives vote on that? What are Obama's and Hillary's stance on that? That was designed to benefit younger people by making sure that they did get something back and weren't as dependent on their own children/grandchildren for subsistence, later on.

/not a Bush supporter (by a long, long shot)
//would like to hear sensible debate, however, long on facts and short on the whining - boomers are just facing the problem first and earlier, as usual - so you might want to watch how it plays out and see where the chips fall
///your own generation will sell you out, too if it benefits them - so if private funds are set up, look for at least half of your agemates to screw up their own opportunities to contribute, just as half of mine have done
////try to figure out how to really fix the problem (if it needs fixing) - or perhaps just tell everyone to pay their own healthcare and be done with it.

But yes, it would be unfair to make Xers continue to pay (you're just starting, really - you've got years and years to go before you're 70.5) and then pull the rug out from under them. Thinking you're going to "fix it" though, is really pompous and sounds almost delusional. All societies, everywhere, face similar demographic problems.

Boomer parents: they farked like bunnies, didn't they? And they're the ones, right now, eatin' up the SS budget - something like 25 percent of healthcare costs go into end-of-life care for them. I'm sure we boomers will march happily off to the heroin club/euthanesia centers.

SVX, you're right - it's not sustainable. But when people propose ways to make things sustainable, I don't see anyone (of any generation) jumping on that bandwagon, much, do you?

AirForceVet: So how do you all propose helping those less fortunate than yourselves?

They don't. It's not their problem your sister's handicapped. Why should they have to pay for her problems?

/Not one of them

kab: "whaaa, my parents / grandparents / whatever ruined everything". STFU already.

It's the current people in power today ruining everything. The Gen Xers and the late Baby Boomers. Those of us born after 1975 are going to spend a lifetime cleaning up the mess of your damn neoliberal policies. That is, if we have that lifetime to look forward to. I guess it depends on whether or not you bastards bomb Iran now...

pacified

methinks this might be the problem

// red-ink republicans

Actually that is a completely different and mostly unrelated problem. In fact you could argue the more money the government borrows, the more expensive it should get to cover the interest (supply and demand) and hence the returns on the surplus in the SS funds will tend to get a better return and last longer.

Lorelle: STFU, Subby. We Boomers have been paying into S.S. for decades.

And we'll get back everything we paid in (including the so-called "employer's share") after drawing SS for about 5 years. After that, we'll be robbing our children and grandchildren.

jbc: Lorelle: We Boomers have been paying into S.S. for decades.

Statistically speaking, you're also going to get more back than you paid in.

It's time to phase out the entire program. Allow everyone to opt out, knowing that they forfeit the right to any amount they've paid into it. Older workers will likely stay in the program, knowing that they're about to cash in. Younger workers who have not paid as much already will likely leave, with the smarter ones knowing they can make more anyway through private long-term investment of the extra money they'd have in each paycheck.

Fund current and future recipients by having businesses continue to pay their share of the payroll tax, the current S.S. "surplus", and current payments from those workers electing to stay in. Also, to reduce outlays, I'd deny benefits to anyone with more than $200K in other post-retirement income.

Don't allow anyone born after a pre-determined date (say 1/1/2010) ever enter the program in the first place, and reduce the payroll tax on businesses when revenues once again exceed outlays.

Late to the game, but this.

SVX: Good times ahead, let me tell you.

Okay, prophet of doom, I'll bite. I've been hearing this since I was 2. I keep waiting for the apocalypse - is it actually occurring someplace and I just don't see it?

The only thing I think will happen is that Americans will lose a few trinkets, go from four TV's and cable boxes per household to two or something. Okay - so maybe everyone will have just one TV per household and some people's kids will live with them, like everywhere else on the planet.

Is this really an apocalypse? Let's just enjoy the ride a little.

I too plan on dropping dead at work, it's by far the most feasible plan, and, oddly, no longer looming out there on some distant horizon. But when I do go, I am pleased to say I've provided pretty well for the 2.0 offspring I've had, who hopefully will never have to depend on the state for a living.

Yes, they will own property in places outside America, and they do speak foreign languages, etc. They both have "skills," too. I mean, nothing can protect them from worldwide nuclear war or an asteroid striking - but really, they're well-prepared to live on without needing SS or welfare. That's true, interestingly, of my nieces and nephews - and has been true, in my family, for a bunch of generations.

We're survivors. Isn't it the same for everyone else?

Crosshair: These problems with SS and Medicare were well known 20 years ago and your generation did jack sh*t to address them. You had your chance, the next generation sees what they are inheriting and they aren't happy about it. The younger generation won't and can't continue the gravy train for you.

No... THIS!

Crocodile:
If anything is busting this country, it's the minute amount we spend on social programs.

It couldn't possibly be the military budget that's equal to that of most of the rest of the world combined.




libbynomore2:
And no, the Iraq war would not have had any impact either way on the ultimate demise of SS and Medicare.


After reading so many, many of your posts:



/Seek help

growinthings: Major shortages in the 'trust funds" are RONNIE REAGEN'S fault, he spent like a drunken sailor and we all got screwed!!!

SS has been a ponzi scheme from the beginning. Blame FDR for starting it.

FarktheNavy: I see what you did there! :)

Glad you seem to approve. My parents are in their mid-80's and raised 6 kids. That means they didn't get to put back a lot of their own money. So, I figure I'm paying into their fund. I'll take care of myself when the time comes.

Epistax: I'm 24 40 and I have a 401K, a ROTH IRA, and savings in the bank. I also pay into social security though I know I'll never see a cent of it ever again. In conclusion I am getting a kick out of these replies.

What he said... at no point did I EVER expect to see all (or any) of the SS $ I've paid in. Honestly, I don't personally know a soul in my generation who thinks they'll ever see it either.

/puzzled at the newly-minted anger
//this was old news when I was 25
///the government rips people off? NO! Really?
////slashies are still cheap, too bad ya can't eat 'em

ScubaDude1960: growinthings: Major shortages in the 'trust funds" are RONNIE REAGEN'S fault, he spent like a drunken sailor and we all got screwed!!!

SS has been a ponzi scheme from the beginning. Blame FDR for starting it.


And fifty years of Democrat Congress' raiding it. The Republican Congress sure as hell didn't help it either.

I found my father's SS booklet the other day. One they sent out when SS was just getting started. One of the promises in there was that the funds would never be touched. It was already "lock boxed."

The problem with lock boxes is that you still can't trust the assholes holding the keys.

Nocens: ScubaDude1960: growinthings: Major shortages in the 'trust funds" are RONNIE REAGEN'S fault, he spent like a drunken sailor and we all got screwed!!!

SS has been a ponzi scheme from the beginning. Blame FDR for starting it.


And fifty years of Democrat Congress' raiding it. The Republican Congress sure as hell didn't help it either.

I found my father's SS booklet the other day. One they sent out when SS was just getting started. One of the promises in there was that the funds would never be touched. It was already "lock boxed."

The problem with lock boxes is that you still can't trust the assholes holding the keys.


Also, that little pamphlet swore up and down your SS number would never be used for anything other than SS... Rofl.

Pro choicers rejoice!
You are a big part of the problem.
50 MILLION potential taxpayers have been killed since 1973 by being aborted..
That is an extremely well thought out plan you have there.

Nobody ever worries about where the next 100 billion for the war is going to come from. These public programs are not running out of money. That's a free market think tank talking point to try to convince the people that privatization is some sort of better alternative. It is not.

When the people need healthcare or disability benefits or life insurance, the GOP walk around with their pockets outturned talking about how we have to sell the whole thing to Wall Street for pennies, or we'll all die poor and hungry. This is a complete fabrication. They just want to let their billionaire friends buy it up cheap, feed off the public funds already in the system, let it crash, then finally give it's broken remnants back to the government again to fix it with a fresh injection of taxes to start the cycle anew. Reagan used to masturbate while thinking about this cycle.

And don't forget that all the countries with real social security systems that make our piddling attempt look like Pinochet had a hand in its design have healthier, better educated, non-impoverished, happier populations- with much more functional media that don't try to push crap like this story every other year.

Real democracies have strong social programs; crappy democracies, where the poor are discouraged from participating because no candidates worthy of corporate media access speak to their issues, have lots of news specials lying about how broken the social programs are.

Good to see this thread quickly turned into a orgy of partisan idiocy.

/both sides farked up

If only we'd put social security into a lockbox...

I read an article not too long ago (forget the source) -- it basically stated that if the gov't increased SS withholding by an extra 1% for employees and 1% for businesses, the fund would be solvent through 2100 at current benefit levels.

Seems like the way to go.

torquestripe: Pro choicers rejoice!
You are a big part of the problem.
50 MILLION potential taxpayers have been killed since 1973 by being aborted..
That is an extremely well thought out plan you have there.

Yes, but that reduced the potential prison population by half a million at a savings of $2500,000.00 a year each.

Nightjars: If only we'd put social security into a lockbox...

I've been saying that all night! Haven't I said that all night? Nobody listens! Yea!

jbc: Lorelle: We Boomers have been paying into S.S. for decades.

Statistically speaking, you're also going to get more back than you paid in.

It's time to phase out the entire program. Allow everyone to opt out, knowing that they forfeit the right to any amount they've paid into it. Older workers will likely stay in the program, knowing that they're about to cash in. Younger workers who have not paid as much already will likely leave, with the smarter ones knowing they can make more anyway through private long-term investment of the extra money they'd have in each paycheck.

Fund current and future recipients by having businesses continue to pay their share of the payroll tax, the current S.S. "surplus", and current payments from those workers electing to stay in. Also, to reduce outlays, I'd deny benefits to anyone with more than $200K in other post-retirement income.

Don't allow anyone born after a pre-determined date (say 1/1/2010) ever enter the program in the first place, and reduce the payroll tax on businesses when revenues once again exceed outlays.

You've been getting quite a bit of support on this, and I have to say that I've supported a similar plan in the past. However, what you are proposing comes with a enormous price tag. As mentioned by several other posters, SS is funded by current contributions, not past. Therefore pulling that source of funds means that it becomes an unfunded mandate, plunging us further into debt. It may be a good long term plan, but the short term expense (30 - 40 years!) and resulting interest makes it impractical at best. If I recall correctly, this was one of reasons that the Bush SS plan was shot down.

Pro choicers rejoice!
You are a big part of the problem.
50 MILLION potential taxpayers have been killed since 1973 by being aborted..
That is an extremely well thought out plan you have there.


Which jobs are they doing (besides the natural outgrowth of 50 million more people)? 50 million makes the problem worse, not better. Unless you want them to be born and simply pay 100% taxes their entire life. Good plan.

YoungSwedishBlonde
The truth doesn't always lie directly in the center of two opposing views. In fact, it rarely does.

Note which view is in a position of power with tons of money, then head 90% of the way toward the other side. That's usually the non-partisan middle-road you're looking for if you want to be fair about things.

torquestripe

Yea, and I'm sure you'd be so wonderfully accepting and loving of those 50 million welfare babies.

I'm_A_Genius_In_France: Yes, but that reduced the potential prison population by half a million at a savings of $2500,000.00 a year each.

Oops that's $250,000 each per year. Got an extra 0 in there.

YoungSwedishBlonde: torquestripe

Yea, and I'm sure you'd be so wonderfully accepting and loving of those 50 million welfare babies.



90% of them would currently be in jail and we'd be supporting them too.

That's something else I can't understand for the life of me. All the baby boomers in charge and pot is still illegal and more people in jail over drugs now than ever.

Hypocritical much?

CrosshairIt's not my fault that you listened to the government and believed them when they said, "Give us a large chunk of your income for when you retire. Everything will be rainbows and sunshine."



Actually, I didn't. My accountant told me that if I don't pay it, police will come to my house and lock me up with a bunch of butt rapists, many of whom have hepatitis and aids. Basically, they will torture me, possibly to death.

So I farkING PAY it. I fully expect them to piss it away, same as any other mafia.

Weaver95: I know someone who cheats the system to get SSI benefits and not work for a living. She's otherwise perfectly able to get up and go to work, she just finds it easier to take SSI bennies than get a job. She believes the rest of us are suckers for holding down a day job.

So perhaps I would not be the best to address your question. Let's just say that my views are colored by my experiences.

Likewise. I've known quite a few like that.

The only funny part was when one of them realized I was taking home more in two weeks (at a shiatty temp job) than they were giving him every month. He was absolutely beside himself when he realized that all he had to do to live a lot closer to the poverty line was get off his ass and work a shiatty temp job. He refused, of course, because it would have meant he'd have to stop pretending to be disabled, and that would mean he wouldn't be able to play the pity card every time he didn't get his way.

Well who could have predicted an annual mandatory monetary siphon in to a state account could have reduced spending capacity?

ScubaDude1960: SS has been a ponzi scheme from the beginning. Blame FDR for starting it.

"There were other plans-the Social Security Act and the Securities Exchange Act. There was no real objection to social security-everybody was for it. The Republicans had denounced the President for his tardiness in presenting a plan. In due time a bill was passed. But here we saw a characteristic of the President's mind which was to bring countless troubled hours to his Congressional leaders. One might pour a perfectly good idea into his mind at one end and it would come out the other with some fantastic twist. There is only one way to provide old-age pensions for retired workers. Those who still work and their employers must make up by contributions each year a sum sufficient to pay the pensions. The commission finally named by Roosevelt to prepare a plan brought forward just such a proposal with a "pay-as-you-go" tax-a small tax on payrolls to meet the requirements each year plus a moderate contingency fund of two or three billions. The bill, after hearings before a Congressional committee, was ready to be reported when Morgenthau was sent post haste to the committee with a scheme just sold to the President in a short talk. The plan was to make the payroll tax big enough to pay the benefits, plus enough more to create a so-called reserve of $47,000,000,000 in 40 years. It was given the fraudulent name of Old-Age Reserve Fund. The Security Board would collect the taxes each year, use a small part to pay the pensions and put the rest in the "Fund." That is, it would "lend" it to the Treasury and the Treasury would then spend it for any purpose it had in mind. At the end of 40 years Roosevelt was told this money could be used to pay off the national debt.

"Fortunately, Congress in 1938 had the courage to put a stop to this and to reduce the rates to a moderate sum. As it is the payroll taxes amount to two per cent-one per cent for the worker and one per cent for the employer-and even so the fund has amounted to many billions in excess of pensions paid the workers. But had Congress not corrected this, the tax would now be six per cent instead of two."

- John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth (1948)

Nightjars: If only we'd put social security into a lockbox...

Not even the sainted FDR wanted a "lock box."

nocens

Well, they're pro-life only up until they're born.

Interesting angle that torquestripe took though. Glad to see he thinks that God sees babies the same way our government does, purely sources of tax income.

torquestripe: Pro choicers rejoice!
You are a big part of the problem.
50 MILLION potential taxpayers have been killed since 1973 by being aborted..
That is an extremely well thought out plan you have there.

This is you without pants.

YoungSwedishBlonde: torquestripe

Yea, and I'm sure you'd be so wonderfully accepting and loving of those 50 million welfare babies.

So let's kill the welfare parents too.
Savings at every turn.
I really like the way you think!