SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[auditor0007]

Bush and the Republicans tried in His first administration to address the problem of SS and medicare and the response from the Dems was it wasn't broken don't need to fix it. A PERFECT Example of their "oppose" anything Bush says tactic. Since they had been claiming during Clinton's time in Office it needed to be fixed.

Whether or not anyone agreed with Bush's suggestion to allow private investment of a small portion of funds, the fact is that Bush knew SS needed to be addressed. And you are absolutely correct. The Dems, and truthfully, most Republicans didn't want to touch SS with a ten foot pole. They were all scared about a backlash at the voting booth. So instead of actually working on a long term solution, nothing was done.

Now we are at a crossroads with both SS and Medicare, and we need some long term solutions. While current spending on everything else is running up current deficits, those can be addressed over time and brought back in line. However, SS and Medicare will become a runaway train if something isn't done soon.

The first obvious step is to up the age at which benefits may be collected. This should be done gradually, say increase the age by one year every five years. This will allow those planning for retirement to adjust slowly. Everyone needs to get on board with this or we will truly pass on some massive costs to our kids and grandkids.

Whether or not raising the age could entirely solve the problem, I don't know, but it would be a first step in the right direction. Those two programs cannot be dismantled; it's just not going to happen, and they are the biggest safety net offerered to Americans. However, neither was meant to be for a long term retirement.

When these programs were first initiated, the average lifespan was only between 65 to 70 years. Now it is 78 years. When Reagan was in office, he understood that this would cause a shortfall, and that is why the rates were increased. As we all know, the surplus that created went to waste, and we can point fingers as much as we want, but it does no good in solving the problem. The surplus is gone; now we must address the current situation in a logical manner.

The current deficit spending and current debt is a spit in the bucket compared to the deficit these programs will create if something isn't done now.

 

[jreeves]

I just took the definition for "income support" in the CBO's budget figures. I've seen welfare defined many different ways.



Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

The 4.4% figure used by the Heritage Foundation (we wouldn't expect them to present figures in a light favorable to welfare, would we?) is a little higher than the 3.2% for "income support" and "medicaid" the CBO budget is broken into. But the Heritgage chart affirms what I said: Since the early 70s, the vast bulk of the growth is attributed to Medicaid, which reflects the fact that health care costs overall have been growing much faster other costs. Putting Medicaid aside, other welfare costs have not grown much as a percentage of GDP.

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.

The poverty rate is what....
View attachment 7371
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, then declined somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people (approx 1 in 8 Americans) were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006, compared to 31.1 million in 2000[14], and that there was an increase of 4.9 million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5 million. [15] The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and 2006. [16] The 2007-2008 poverty threshold was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[17] which are illustrated in the table below.

Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.

Damn are you just making stuff up now?

Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.

Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.


You claimed earlier that the poverty rate was reported at 9.8% in 2006, correct? It was actually, 12.6%.

Not true...you rely on the Census Bureau fine...here you go. Its in a pdf so I can't cut and paste, but its on page 20 and its figure 4 the poverty rate was 12.6%.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

 

[manu1959]

why people believe the govt will take care of you just stuns me.....you will pay into ss and medicare and soon national health care and you fed taxes and they wll take it and buy stupid things in america and send it to other countries and buy jets and guns and tanks,,,,not to mention give it to banks and unions....

yet you keep voting the same people into congress....

definition of insanity really....

 

[auditor0007]

what?

I thought my social Security money was mine. You know put aside especially for me and my retirement.
Are you telling me the government lied to me? That the money i paid into social Security was not put in an account especially for me?

Are you saying that the government has been running a ponzi scheme all these years?
That the amount of money that this illegal (for anyone but the government that is) scam has collected put the recent Madoff scam in the chump change category?

You must be lying because I know the government and my esteemed and trusted politicians would never never never lie to me and that all they do is look out for my best interests.

So i believe my government and if they need to take more money from my pay and your pay to look out for us all and make sure we have a secure retirement then I'm all for it.

After all if we can't trust our government, who can we trust?***

***SARCASM

First of all, it wasn't nor is it a ponzi scheme. It was set up to operate as a pay as you go program. The fact that the surplus created by Reagan and Congress at the time was wasted can be blamed on everyone. Yes, our politicians, our representatives pissed this money away. But where were the voters who elected these people who pissed the money away? Why weren't they screaming bloody murder and sending these politicians packing, and why didn't they vote for those who would have kept those funds secure?

We have ourselves to blame as much as anyone. What we need now is some serious discussion and action that will keep these programs solvent without taxing the shit out of all of us.

 

[Iriemon]

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.



Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.

Damn are you just making stuff up now?

Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.

Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Demostrating that you can't backup you claim JFK authorized waterboarding while accusing me of making stuff up. I get it.

You claimed earlier that the poverty rate was reported at 9.8% in 2006, correct? It was actually, 12.6%.

Yep. And here is the Census Bureau website I cited earlier showing the poverty rate is 9.8% in 2006. 1st line, 3d column.

Historical Poverty Tables

Anything else you want to claim I made up?

 

[jreeves]

I just took the definition for "income support" in the CBO's budget figures. I've seen welfare defined many different ways.



Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

The 4.4% figure used by the Heritage Foundation (we wouldn't expect them to present figures in a light favorable to welfare, would we?) is a little higher than the 3.2% for "income support" and "medicaid" the CBO budget is broken into. But the Heritgage chart affirms what I said: Since the early 70s, the vast bulk of the growth is attributed to Medicaid, which reflects the fact that health care costs overall have been growing much faster other costs. Putting Medicaid aside, other welfare costs have not grown much as a percentage of GDP.

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.

The poverty rate is what....
View attachment 7371
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, then declined somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people (approx 1 in 8 Americans) were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006, compared to 31.1 million in 2000[14], and that there was an increase of 4.9 million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5 million. [15] The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and 2006. [16] The 2007-2008 poverty threshold was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[17] which are illustrated in the table below.

Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.

Damn are you just making stuff up now?

Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.

Obviously you can't read charts, little of what you said is indicated by the graph. For one the graph reflects spending in 1969 as 2000 dolllars, inflation is accounted for and GDP growth is a factor in inflation.

Welfare spending as reported on the chart for 1969 was under 50 billion 2000 dollars and increased to over 400 billion 2000 dollars in 2000.

Yes Medicaid did grow greatly, but Medicaid is means tested welfare.

 

[jreeves]

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.



Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.



Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.

Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Demostrating that you can't backup you claim JFK authorized waterboarding while accusing me of making stuff up. I get it.

You claimed earlier that the poverty rate was reported at 9.8% in 2006, correct? It was actually, 12.6%.

Yep. And here is the Census Bureau website I cited earlier showing the poverty rate is 9.8% in 2006. 1st line, 3d column.

Historical Poverty Tables

Anything else you want to claim I made up?

Letting people make up their own minds, that's all about the waterboarding claim.

Dipshit so all Americans are families now? If you look closely at your link it reports the poverty rate among families, but that was a nice try at distorting the facts.

From your link....

Table 13. Number of Families Below the Poverty Level and Poverty Rate:
1959 to 2006

 

[Newby]

That assumes someone already has a sufficient portfolio for retirement, in which case they don't need to wait 5 years to retire. Few people are lucky enough to be in that situation.

Even someone in retirement may need more in stocks IMO, for the portfolio to both generate sufficient return and keep up with inflation.

If you got $10 million, you're in a different category but relatively few will be so lucky.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'luck', it has to do with being responsible for yourself and planning and making sure your own future is financially sound and taken care of.

Or inheret $10 million from a family member. Luck.

If you're sitting around waiting for money to fall into your lap, then you're pretty damn stupid. You work, you be responsible, you plan and budget, and you save for your own future. It's really quite simple. You don't rely on everyone else in society who has done just that to save your sorry ass from your own incompetencies.

There are exceptions to that for people who are unable to do so, but it should be a very small percentage of society, and not need an entire bureaucratic government-run system worth billions to support that small percentage of people who are 'unable'.

 

[sealybobo]

Mission accomplished. The GOP always wanted to kill SS. This is why they should have never been put in charge.

The solution is to make all the young mexican illegals US Citizens so they can start paying taxes.

And make them serve in the military for minimum wage. Once they are out, they get full citizenship and VA bene's.

 

[KMAN]

Bush and the Republicans tried in His first administration to address the problem of SS and medicare and the response from the Dems was it wasn't broken don't need to fix it. A PERFECT Example of their "oppose" anything Bush says tactic. Since they had been claiming during Clinton's time in Office it needed to be fixed.

They did the same thing with Fannie and Freddie when it was brought to Barnie Franks attention there could be a problem he said I don't see a problem... Sad group of people running this country... They are running it straight into the ground... Sure glad they passed that stimulus package which hasn't done squat...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...dio-video-from-cspan-2003-fannie-hearing.html

 

[Iriemon]

Bush and the Republicans tried in His first administration to address the problem of SS and medicare and the response from the Dems was it wasn't broken don't need to fix it. A PERFECT Example of their "oppose" anything Bush says tactic. Since they had been claiming during Clinton's time in Office it needed to be fixed.

They did the same thing with Fannie and Freddie when it was brought to Barnie Franks attention there could be a problem he said I don't see a problem...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...dio-video-from-cspan-2003-fannie-hearing.html

Yet funny enough, Frank joined with the Republicans in the house to pass the *only* bill to come out of the Republican controlled Congress to provide greater regulation of Fanny and Freddie, and according to the Republican sponsor of the bill, it died because they got "the one fingered salute" from the Bush WH.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1180017-post21.html

 

[Iriemon]

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'luck', it has to do with being responsible for yourself and planning and making sure your own future is financially sound and taken care of.

Or inheret $10 million from a family member. Luck.

If you're sitting around waiting for money to fall into your lap, then you're pretty damn stupid. You work, you be responsible, you plan and budget, and you save for your own future. It's really quite simple. You don't rely on everyone else in society who has done just that to save your sorry ass from your own incompetencies.

There are exceptions to that for people who are unable to do so, but it should be a very small percentage of society, and not need an entire bureaucratic government-run system worth billions to support that small percentage of people who are 'unable'.

Thanks for the lecture. Anything relevant you wanted to add?

 

[Iriemon]

Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Demostrating that you can't backup you claim JFK authorized waterboarding while accusing me of making stuff up. I get it.

You claimed earlier that the poverty rate was reported at 9.8% in 2006, correct? It was actually, 12.6%.

Yep. And here is the Census Bureau website I cited earlier showing the poverty rate is 9.8% in 2006. 1st line, 3d column.

Historical Poverty Tables

Anything else you want to claim I made up?

... Dipshit ...

Post ignored. If you want to have a discussion without infantile flaming I'll be happy to do so.

Otherwise I'll discuss these issues and defend my positions with anyone else.

 

[Iriemon]

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.



Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.

Damn are you just making stuff up now?

Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.

Obviously you can't read charts, little of what you said is indicated by the graph. For one the graph reflects spending in 1969 as 2000 dolllars, inflation is accounted for and GDP growth is a factor in inflation.

That is why I used "real" or inflation adjusted GDP figures.

Welfare spending as reported on the chart for 1969 was under 50 billion 2000 dollars and increased to over 400 billion 2000 dollars in 2000.

Doesn't look that way to me. Where are the actual figures?

Yes Medicaid did grow greatly, but Medicaid is means tested welfare.

Welfare is defined in a number of different ways, but I don't think I ever said otherwise.

 

[Newby]

Or inheret $10 million from a family member. Luck.

If you're sitting around waiting for money to fall into your lap, then you're pretty damn stupid. You work, you be responsible, you plan and budget, and you save for your own future. It's really quite simple. You don't rely on everyone else in society who has done just that to save your sorry ass from your own incompetencies.

There are exceptions to that for people who are unable to do so, but it should be a very small percentage of society, and not need an entire bureaucratic government-run system worth billions to support that small percentage of people who are 'unable'.

Thanks for the lecture. Anything relevant you wanted to add?

It tells me all I need to know about you when you can't agree with that.

 

[KittenKoder]

If they do shut it down, I want all my money back with interest and inflation added. Every damned penny, so I can invest it myself.

 

[Iriemon]

If they do shut it down, I want all my money back with interest and inflation added. Every damned penny, so I can invest it myself.

You don't get your money back when you pay for insurance, sorry.

 

[KittenKoder]

If they do shut it down, I want all my money back with interest and inflation added. Every damned penny, so I can invest it myself.

You don't get your money back when you pay for insurance, sorry.

SS isn't insurance ... it's a forced collection for retirement.

 

[Iriemon]

If they do shut it down, I want all my money back with interest and inflation added. Every damned penny, so I can invest it myself.

You don't get your money back when you pay for insurance, sorry.

SS isn't insurance ... it's a forced collection for retirement.

I think you have been mislead as to what SS is.

SS is social insurance. Just like insurance, you pay in for it to get benefits if certain conditions apply. You don't automatically get your money back. If you die at age 65, you get nothing. On the other hand, if you live to 120, you get benefits. If you become disabled, you get benefits. If you die, your family gets benefits.

It's not an never was an investment any more than life insurance of health coverage is an investment.

 

[KittenKoder]

You don't get your money back when you pay for insurance, sorry.

SS isn't insurance ... it's a forced collection for retirement.

I think you have been mislead as to what SS is.

SS is social insurance. Just like insurance, you pay in for it to get benefits if certain conditions apply. You don't automatically get your money back. If you die at age 65, you get nothing. On the other hand, if you live to 120, you get benefits. If you become disabled, you get benefits. If you die, your family gets benefits.

It's not an never was an investment any more than life insurance of health coverage is an investment.

Really ... um ... then I still should get my money back because they didn't make in voluntary, and insurance is voluntary.