How much are we really spending on SS and Medicare?

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Liberty]

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.

 

[Leweman]

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.

Yeah SS has a surplus

 

[uscitizen]

I answered my own question on SS, technically we are spending nothing yet on SS, other than to repay money borrowed from SS.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Yeah SS has a surplus

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?

 

[theHawk]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.

 

[American Horse]

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.

 

[American Horse]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

That would prevent the trust fund money from earning interest.

 

[bucs90]

I can't help but laugh at libtards saying SS is "owed" and the gov't is in "debt" to the citizens.

We made it 10,000 years as humans without SS. SS isn't even 100 years old. It isn't OWED to 1 single human on Earth. No human has done anything for the gov't that the gov't is now in "debt" to them for.

The gov't takes, by threat of violence, money from us in a glorified ponsi scheme called SS. We didn't owe the gov't that. The gov't isn't now in debt to us. It is just a scheme that we allowed and still tolerate.

We made it 10,000 years without "entitlements". We can do it again if we quit being whiny bitches and grow up.

 

[editec]

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.

Yeah SS has a surplus

Social Security's "surplus" is debt owed by the FED to SS.

If SS has no surplus (and most of us can certainly understand why you're dubious) then all other creditors of the USA --banks, insurance companies, 401Ks, mutual funds, pension funds, foreign nations and billionaires -- are theoretically, equally at risk for not getting repaid.

Now, do I doubt that our government is capable of deciding to renege on the debts owed to American people in favor of all other creditors?

Not one bit.

After all, isn't that what the GOP is calling for even now?

Are they not suggesing that we radically alter or completely abandon the SS contract? Do not their minions, many of them on this board, try to convince people that SS is instead of a prepaid social insurance system, a form of welfare?

I note also that the while the GOP wants to abandon its obligations regarding SS, it never calls for the reckless abandonment (or renegotiation of terms) of the FEDs debts to all other creditors.

 

[American Horse]

Social Security's "surplus" is debt owed by the FED to SS.

If SS has no surplus (and most of us can certainly understand why you're dubious) then all other creditors of the USA --banks, insurance companies, 401Ks, mutual funds, pension funds, foreign nations and billionaires -- are theoretically, equally at risk for not getting repaid.

Now, do I doubt that our government is capable of deciding to renege on the debts owed to American people in favor of all other creditors?

Not one bit.

After all, isn't that what the GOP is calling for even now?

Are they not suggesing that we radically alter or completely abandon the SS contract? Do not their minions, many of them on this board, try to convince people that SS is instead of a prepaid social insurance system, a form of welfare?

I note also that the while the GOP wants to abandon its obligations regarding SS, it never calls for the reckless abandonment (or renegotiation of terms) of the FEDs debts to all other creditors.

No not at all; and it is that perception (putting it kindly) that stands between us and saving the program in some viable form into the future. The fact that at one time there were 20 payors for each payee does not enable the system into the future when the ratio approaches the opposite situation.

 

[The Rabbi]

How much are we really spending on those programs?

Too much.

 

[editec]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

That cow is already in the meadow and the pig's in the corn, amigo.

By LAW social security MUST invest its excess funds in " the safest securites in the land" That means (or at least it USED TO MEAN) US Treasury backed securities.

 

[editec]

Social Security's "surplus" is debt owed by the FED to SS.

If SS has no surplus (and most of us can certainly understand why you're dubious) then all other creditors of the USA --banks, insurance companies, 401Ks, mutual funds, pension funds, foreign nations and billionaires -- are theoretically, equally at risk for not getting repaid.

Now, do I doubt that our government is capable of deciding to renege on the debts owed to American people in favor of all other creditors?

Not one bit.

After all, isn't that what the GOP is calling for even now?

Are they not suggesing that we radically alter or completely abandon the SS contract? Do not their minions, many of them on this board, try to convince people that SS is instead of a prepaid social insurance system, a form of welfare?

I note also that the while the GOP wants to abandon its obligations regarding SS, it never calls for the reckless abandonment (or renegotiation of terms) of the FEDs debts to all other creditors.

No not at all; and it is that perception (putting it kindly) that stands between us and saving the program in some viable form into the future. The fact that at one time there were 20 payors for each payee does not enable the system into the future when the ratio approaches the opposite situation.

That is certainly the looming demograhics problem social security is facing.

WE're informed that if NOTHING was done to the social security system that it would still be solvent until 2045.

Like you, I have my doubts about that, but that is what we're told.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.

I am not talking about the next 75 years. I am talking about now and how much we are actually spending on SS. ie tax dollars not SS "contributions"

Yes SS needs to be adjusted for the future. LIke removing the cap on how much salary you pay SS contributions on.
And raising the age of eligibility since we live longer.

 

[American Horse]

Social Security's "surplus" is debt owed by the FED to SS.

If SS has no surplus (and most of us can certainly understand why you're dubious) then all other creditors of the USA --banks, insurance companies, 401Ks, mutual funds, pension funds, foreign nations and billionaires -- are theoretically, equally at risk for not getting repaid.

Now, do I doubt that our government is capable of deciding to renege on the debts owed to American people in favor of all other creditors?

Not one bit.

After all, isn't that what the GOP is calling for even now?

Are they not suggesing that we radically alter or completely abandon the SS contract? Do not their minions, many of them on this board, try to convince people that SS is instead of a prepaid social insurance system, a form of welfare?

I note also that the while the GOP wants to abandon its obligations regarding SS, it never calls for the reckless abandonment (or renegotiation of terms) of the FEDs debts to all other creditors.

No not at all; and it is that perception (putting it kindly) that stands between us and saving the program in some viable form into the future. The fact that at one time there were 20 payors for each payee does not enable the system into the future when the ratio approaches the opposite situation.

That is certainly the looming demograhics problem social security is facing.

WE're informed that if NOTHING was done to the social security system that it would still be solvent until 2045.

Like you, I have my doubts about that, but that is what we're told.

You and I know what that means: it's that if we could collect from our SS trust fund (invested entirely in US bonds) that it would work that long into the future. But collecting on those bonds is impossible without causing huge monetary expansion followed by inflation (which would cause retirees dollars to erode creating a destructive feedback cycle).

Too many politicians like it the way it is, aside from its a simple political issue, it's a great booster of cash flow to the treasury. The Ds know that if it fails they can do what they've already done with Medicare - roll it into another program so that the damage it causes can be denied - and who'd believe the republicans on any social issue - and yes, blame the republicans, because they are always suspect when it comes to helping the poor.

 

[uscitizen]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

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.

sure I can imagine if that money has been "invested" in the private sector. It sould be similar to the stimulus. Where did all the money go? Is that all we have to show for it?

Of course the private sector wants this so they will make profits from our "ss insurance" premiums. The market has been saturated for years, the credit foundering kept things going for a while but no more. So private industry began to chase tax dollars.
And the move towards privitizatin began.

the private industries we would be investing in now would be in China and India, etc.