How much are we really spending on SS and Medicare?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by uscitizen, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    We pay dedicated opremiums for both medicare and SS, the amount of tax dollars spent are only the amounts required over those amounts.
    And technically SS still has a surplus so we are spending nothing on it yet.

    But the Right seems to not want the government to pay it's obligation to SS?
    The money owed to SS, well over 2 trillion.
     
  2. Liberty
    Offline

    Liberty Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Thanks Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    colorado
    Ratings:
    +548
    i love how your threads are basically begging us to educate you. here's an idea. use google and educate yourself? I know, tough concept.
     
  3. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    Yeah SS has a surplus :cuckoo:
     
  4. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I answered my own question on SS, technically we are spending nothing yet on SS, other than to repay money borrowed from SS.
     
  5. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Ahh the right wing denail of a debt owed.
    Just what I was talking about.

    IN your mind then neither do the banks that have loans outstanding hold no assets by holding those loans?
    And treasury bonds are not assets neither?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  6. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,789
    Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.
     
  7. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    How do you think we paid for George Bush's war? It's not as if GWB sold war bonds or included the cost of the Iraq fiasco in his budget.
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    26,150
    Thanks Received:
    3,657
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +10,092
    I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.
     
  9. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Responsible republicans, meaning elected rRpublicans, do not advocate suspension of payment of SS benefits. The call for making the necessary changes to save SS (and Medicare) to make them solvent in the out years is by changing the structure for people now (or when actually passed) under 55 years.

    Many of them are the same folks who say "I'll never collect, it won't be there for me." It will too, but it will have to undergo some changes; lest it truly won't be there.

    SS is now in a surplus situation, the surplus monies were used to buy US bonds, and the proceeds from the sale of those bonds used for general expenditures from the treasury for things unrelated to SS. Medicare is not in the same positive position however and is part of the money spent just mentioned.

    The trouble with SS is that payees will soon exceed payers and those bonds will be called to account and the treasury will have to redeem them, and it does not have the money to do that. The only way out will be to print money to monetize that debt on top of all our other debt obligations, or sell more bonds to replace the "SS Trust Fund" Bonds, thereby adding to the debt, in either case.

    The Republicans in congress are attempting to force the public to face that reality now, while there is still time to correct the imbalance before our treasury is forced to replace the missing money as I just described; it will have to do or default. Obama care is already a default on Medicare; older people will not get all the same health care in the next few years that they get now or got in the recent past; it is already unsustainable and is being funded from the general fund ... which in realit means it too is borrowing from SS.

    Both my wife and I are SS beneficiaries, and our combined benefit is more than half of what is needed need to continue living a modest lifestyle, with no ability to leave an estate to child and grandchildren. We would willingly accept lower annual increases if necessary, because we could, we will, over time reduce our annual expenditures.

    Now I need a truck to enable me to work to add to our income, but eventually I could give that up and all it's costs and rely on just the wife's car. We have a home paid for, but that asset will have to be cannibalized for living expenses via a reverse mortgage. There is much more we will have to give up. The vacations we can (finally) afford to take annually to Florida, that we couldn't afford to take for a decade at a time because of both lack of funds and time away from the demands of work, are going to have to end. This is the reality of getting old, but maybe too, the reality of too much promised by political hacks and piss poor managers of the public purse.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  10. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    First, Social Security is an INSURANCE. It isn't a savings account. If people don't need to receive social security benefits, then they shouldn't. Minimum income reequirements including taking into account "unearned income" would greatly reduce the burden on the system.

    Second, Keep the government from borrowing money from those funds in order to pay for other things. Considering how much the government has 'borrowed', is it no wonder the program isn't solvent? Could you imagine if all that money had been invested in the private sector by the government instead?
    It's not too late to change that policy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011

Share This Page