SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[Iriemon]

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

if all those old people were allowed to keep their 7.5% of income and the 7.5% of income contributed by their employers, there would be no need for Social security. And their money would really be their money just as your money would really be your money.

if we were allowed to keep that 15% of our incomes over a lifetime, we would all be able to afford a better disability insurance plan and have more to live on in retirement.

Would a private system that 1) provided a guaranteed, inflation adjusted death benefit for your survivors if you died, 2) provided a guaranteed, inflation adjusted disability benefit, and 3) provide an inflation adjusted guaranteed lifetime pension for you (and spouse if you die), that was guaranteed against failure of the company, and provide these benefits in sufficient amount even for low income wage earners in the country, *and* cost less than SS? Mabye. I'd have to see the numbers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

if all those old people were allowed to keep their 7.5% of income and the 7.5% of income contributed by their employers, there would be no need for Social security. And their money would really be their money just as your money would really be your money.

if we were allowed to keep that 15% of our incomes over a lifetime, we would all be able to afford a better disability insurance plan and have more to live on in retirement.

Would a private system that 1) provided a guaranteed, inflation adjusted death benefit for your survivors if you died,

It's called life insurance. and everyone with a family should have it regardless.

2) provided a guaranteed, inflation adjusted disability benefit,

It's called disability insurance. and privately owned DI is way better than the SS DI. there is less red tape and larger benefits for less money

and 3) provide an inflation adjusted guaranteed lifetime pension for you (and spouse if you die), that was guaranteed against failure of the company, and provide these benefits in sufficient amount even for low income wage earners in the country, *and* cost less than SS? Mabye. I'd have to see the numbers.

if you put 15% of your gross income that is now taken by SS into a private account, it would not matter what the company you worked for did.

In fact that 15% savings would not even be felt and people would still be able to contribute to an IRA of a 401K. Imagine if everyone saved at least the 15% AND saved an additional 10 or 20% on top of that.

And even if you have a company sponsored 401K, the money is still ALL yours if the company goes under. Just be smart enough not to invest more than 5% of your retirement money in stock of the company you work for.

 

[Newby]

Read the thread before you comment. KK was talking about wanting the money she paid back. That is the issue. You can do that with an investment. Try doing that with your insurance company.

I've read the entire thread, but thanks for the advice. You and I are having a discussion. You and KK are having a discussion. Try to keep it in focus who you are talking too. I was not talking to KK and she was not talking to me.

I don't think I went to far out on the limb of reason to suggest that dying is generally a condition of getting payment on a life insurance policy.

Insurance policies with investment components have investment components. So what?

Well then maybe you can have the intellectual honesty to take back what you said earlier in the thread about insurance companies collecting money for years and never having to pay anything back out? Just as social security does? That's where this whole line of thought originated, you trying to pretend that insurance is substandard when compared to SS. The facts are that an insurance policy will ALWAYS pay out the face value of the policy (if there was no crime, cause I'm sure that's where you'd be reaching next) unlike social security, where if there is no spouse, guess who gets the money?

Your poin is you can get an insurance policy with an investment component in it. So what. And for the bulk of us, I wouldn't can a "whole life" type policy the right kind of insurance.

Hey, you're the one calling SS a type of insurance. I think I've made the case that it is no where near any such thing.

 

[Iriemon]

if all those old people were allowed to keep their 7.5% of income and the 7.5% of income contributed by their employers, there would be no need for Social security. And their money would really be their money just as your money would really be your money.

if we were allowed to keep that 15% of our incomes over a lifetime, we would all be able to afford a better disability insurance plan and have more to live on in retirement.

It's called life insurance. and everyone with a family should have it regardless.

It's called disability insurance. and privately owned DI is way better than the SS DI. there is less red tape and larger benefits for less money

and 3) provide an inflation adjusted guaranteed lifetime pension for you (and spouse if you die), that was guaranteed against failure of the company, and provide these benefits in sufficient amount even for low income wage earners in the country, *and* cost less than SS? Mabye. I'd have to see the numbers.

if you put 15% of your gross income that is now taken by SS into a private account, it would not matter what the company you worked for did.

I was talking about a guaranteed payment to protect against a failure of the insurance company.

In fact that 15% savings would not even be felt and people would still be able to contribute to an IRA of a 401K. Imagine if everyone saved at least the 15% AND saved an additional 10 or 20% on top of that.

It would be 12.4%, assuming that the employer increased your wage the full amount. The other part is medicare.

But if everyone could afford to do that and in fact did that, and were able to get life insurance and disability insurance and in fact did that, maybe we wouldn't need SS.

And even if you have a company sponsored 401K, the money is still ALL yours if the company goes under. Just be smart enough not to invest more than 5% of your retirement money in stock of the company you work for.

What about all the people who are not smart enough or rich enough to do all this?

 

[Iriemon]

Read the thread before you comment. KK was talking about wanting the money she paid back. That is the issue. You can do that with an investment. Try doing that with your insurance company.

I've read the entire thread, but thanks for the advice. You and I are having a discussion. You and KK are having a discussion. Try to keep it in focus who you are talking too. I was not talking to KK and she was not talking to me.

Then you understood why I talked about getting your money back as a comparison between and investment and insurance.

I don't think I went to far out on the limb of reason to suggest that dying is generally a condition of getting payment on a life insurance policy.

Insurance policies with investment components have investment components. So what?

Well then maybe you can have the intellectual honesty to take back what you said earlier in the thread about insurance companies collecting money for years and never having to pay anything back out? [/quote]

They don't. Unless certain conditions occur. Do you disagree that if you don't die there is no life insurance payment for life insurance?

Maybe you are the one who needs to freshen up on how insurance works.

Just as social security does? That's where this whole line of thought originated, you trying to pretend that insurance is substandard when compared to SS. The facts are that an insurance policy will ALWAYS pay out the face value of the policy (if there was no crime, cause I'm sure that's where you'd be reaching next) unlike social security, where if there is no spouse, guess who gets the money?

I didn't make any comparisons between insurance.

This discussion started with KK saying she wanted her money back. I said SS is not an invesment but social insurance.

You even agree with me its not an investment where you get your money back.

Your poin is you can get an insurance policy with an investment component in it. So what. And for the bulk of us, I wouldn't can a "whole life" type policy the right kind of insurance.

Hey, you're the one calling SS a type of insurance. I think I've made the case that it is no where near any such thing.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your opinion. I think I've made the case that it is a lot more like insurance than an investment. Other folks can decide for themselves.

 

[Iriemon]

Read the thread before you comment. KK was talking about wanting the money she paid back. That is the issue. You can do that with an investment. Try doing that with your insurance company.

I've read the entire thread, but thanks for the advice. You and I are having a discussion. You and KK are having a discussion. Try to keep it in focus who you are talking too. I was not talking to KK and she was not talking to me.

Then you understood why I talked about getting your money back as a comparison between and investment and insurance.

I don't think I went to far out on the limb of reason to suggest that dying is generally a condition of getting payment on a life insurance policy.

Insurance policies with investment components have investment components. So what?

Well then maybe you can have the intellectual honesty to take back what you said earlier in the thread about insurance companies collecting money for years and never having to pay anything back out?

I won't, in part because you mistated me. I stand by my statement. Here are my statements, which you bolded:

Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.

Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

I stand by my statements. If you have life insurance, unless certain conditions occur, the insurance company doesn't have to pay you.

Do you disagree that if you don't die there is no life insurance payment for life insurance?
If so, I think it is you who needs to freshen up on how insurance works.

Just as social security does? That's where this whole line of thought originated, you trying to pretend that insurance is substandard when compared to SS. The facts are that an insurance policy will ALWAYS pay out the face value of the policy (if there was no crime, cause I'm sure that's where you'd be reaching next) unlike social security, where if there is no spouse, guess who gets the money?

I didn't make any comparisons between insurance and SS and say insurance is substandard. And that is not my point at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

This discussion started with KK saying she wanted her money back. I said SS is not an invesment but social insurance. I stand by that statement.

You even agree with me its not an investment where you get your money back.

Your poin is you can get an insurance policy with an investment component in it. So what. And for the bulk of us, I wouldn't can a "whole life" type policy the right kind of insurance.

Hey, you're the one calling SS a type of insurance. I think I've made the case that it is no where near any such thing.

Thanks for your opinion. I think I've made the case that it is a lot more like insurance than an investment. Other folks can decide for themselves.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's called life insurance. and everyone with a family should have it regardless.

It's called disability insurance. and privately owned DI is way better than the SS DI. there is less red tape and larger benefits for less money



if you put 15% of your gross income that is now taken by SS into a private account, it would not matter what the company you worked for did.

I was talking about a guaranteed payment to protect against a failure of the insurance company.

In fact that 15% savings would not even be felt and people would still be able to contribute to an IRA of a 401K. Imagine if everyone saved at least the 15% AND saved an additional 10 or 20% on top of that.

It would be 12.4%, assuming that the employer increased your wage the full amount. The other part is medicare.

But if everyone could afford to do that and in fact did that, and were able to get life insurance and disability insurance and in fact did that, maybe we wouldn't need SS.

And even if you have a company sponsored 401K, the money is still ALL yours if the company goes under. Just be smart enough not to invest more than 5% of your retirement money in stock of the company you work for.

What about all the people who are not smart enough or rich enough to do all this?

they can live with you. I shouldn't have to pay for them.

And you don't have to be rich to save for retirement. everyone already is getting money taken from them. let them keep it to take care of themselves.

 

[Iriemon]

It's called disability insurance. and privately owned DI is way better than the SS DI. there is less red tape and larger benefits for less money



if you put 15% of your gross income that is now taken by SS into a private account, it would not matter what the company you worked for did.

I was talking about a guaranteed payment to protect against a failure of the insurance company.



It would be 12.4%, assuming that the employer increased your wage the full amount. The other part is medicare.

But if everyone could afford to do that and in fact did that, and were able to get life insurance and disability insurance and in fact did that, maybe we wouldn't need SS.

And even if you have a company sponsored 401K, the money is still ALL yours if the company goes under. Just be smart enough not to invest more than 5% of your retirement money in stock of the company you work for.

What about all the people who are not smart enough or rich enough to do all this?

they can live with you. I shouldn't have to pay for them.

Heh heh, if that is your alternative proposal, I'll continue my support for SS, thanks.

And you don't have to be rich to save for retirement. everyone already is getting money taken from them. let them keep it to take care of themselves.

I suppose you could give up the apartment and choose to live in a cardboard box under the freeway and save the 20% for retirement instead.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFLMNAO... Damn... that is just SAD.

What color is the sky in your world?

FTR: SS is a Ponzi Scheme... it is mathematically untenable... But NO SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT IS TENABLE...

The entire litany of left-think giveaways, since the front edge of the New Deal has been subsidized by SS... Medicare and all the federally subsidized State entitlements have ALL been subsidized by the general fund, which SS confiscations are summarily applied; which means that ALL OF IT is a SCAM...

And the final tab is JUST about to come due... and when it does... it is OVER for what stands now as the US GOVERNMENT... and this notion that 'something can be done to "FIX IT"...' is ABSURD... the tab to "FIX IT" is four times the annual GDP of the entire US economy... and there is NO WAY ON EARTH, that FIXING THAT can be accomplished PERIOD; given that the left is NOT going to even SLOW ENTITLEMENT SPENDING... so the issue is MATASTICIZED ECONOMIC CANCER... its a result of sustained lethal doses of left-think to the central culture system; there is no means for a cure...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I was talking about a guaranteed payment to protect against a failure of the insurance company.



It would be 12.4%, assuming that the employer increased your wage the full amount. The other part is medicare.

But if everyone could afford to do that and in fact did that, and were able to get life insurance and disability insurance and in fact did that, maybe we wouldn't need SS.



What about all the people who are not smart enough or rich enough to do all this?

they can live with you. I shouldn't have to pay for them.

Heh heh, if that is your alternative proposal, I'll continue my support for SS, thanks.

And you don't have to be rich to save for retirement. everyone already is getting money taken from them. let them keep it to take care of themselves.

I suppose you could give up the apartment and choose to live in a cardboard box under the freeway and save the 20% for retirement instead.

why give it up. take the 15% the government takes and add a mere 5% more. You'd be better off than relying on SS.

 

[Iriemon]

they can live with you. I shouldn't have to pay for them.

Heh heh, if that is your alternative proposal, I'll continue my support for SS, thanks.

And you don't have to be rich to save for retirement. everyone already is getting money taken from them. let them keep it to take care of themselves.

I suppose you could give up the apartment and choose to live in a cardboard box under the freeway and save the 20% for retirement instead.

why give it up. take the 15% the government takes and add a mere 5% more. You'd be better off than relying on SS.

I'd personally be better off if I didn't have to pay SS. I make a good income and I can afford to be a saver and investor and could probably do better without. Though because of a condition (diabetes) trying to get life or disability insurance is both problematic and expensive. It's very unlikely I'll ever get out of SS what I put in.

But IMO its better for the nation.

 

[jreeves]

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



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.

Of course you'll ignore that I proved you were trying to distort poverty rates in the US. That really doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[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.

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.

The graph already includes real inflation numbers.

I don't know, social spending wasn't really a factor before LBJ. So I don't know that too much analysis was done back in the 60's. But I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would be able to find something.
It seemed as though you were excusing the Medicaid spending because it was associated with rising medical care. So I was pointing out, if the government foots the bill then it is welfare, regardless of other conditions surrounding the spending.

 

[jreeves]

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.

The money is gone already, 2.2 trillion dollars worth of Social Security funds have been stolen by politicians for the general fund.

 

[jreeves]

Insurance is not necessarily voluntary. Here in Florida you have to have collision insurance or you can't drive, for example. SS is not voluntary, and that fact does not change the fact that it is insurance in nature. No taxes are voluntary, and you don't get them back.

Yes it is, if you don't want auto insurance you simply choose not to drive, simple. Also, even in instances in which you are suppose to (many people still choose not to) you get to choose where and who handles it, thus the risk is all on you. With SS the risk of the financial stability of it is not in our hands, proven by the government raiding it regularly. Since we have no control over it, it's not insurance, it's either robbery or forced retirement investment. As an investment I can understand, but unless they return it, it should have been voluntary from the beginning, period. So, it's really just robbery.

With private insurance you run the risk of the insurer going belly up.

It's absolutely like insurance. How did you ever get the idea that somehow you were entitled to your money back? Who said that?

It's not supposed to be an investment. It's a social insurance program so that as a nation, we don't have hordes of old folks, disabled people and orphans living under freeways begging at stoplights because they have no assets to live on.

And it works great. Could you image what the country would be like without SS?

Its no more robbery than any other tax. Its the cost of being a US citizen. You don't have to pay US taxes, SS or otherwise, by moving out and revoking citizenship.

But with the federal government running 11 trillion dollar deficits there is no need to worry. Yep I can imagine what the country would look like without SS look at Pre-FDR.

 

[Iriemon]

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.



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.

The graph already includes real inflation numbers.

As did my GDP numbers that is why they were comparable.

I don't know, social spending wasn't really a factor before LBJ. So I don't know that too much analysis was done back in the 60's. But I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would be able to find something.
It seemed as though you were excusing the Medicaid spending because it was associated with rising medical care. So I was pointing out, if the government foots the bill then it is welfare, regardless of other conditions surrounding the spending.

That's fair. The difference is that welfare hasn't been increasing so much because the govt is giving out more and more but because the cost of providing medical care has increased so dramatically.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes it is, if you don't want auto insurance you simply choose not to drive, simple. Also, even in instances in which you are suppose to (many people still choose not to) you get to choose where and who handles it, thus the risk is all on you. With SS the risk of the financial stability of it is not in our hands, proven by the government raiding it regularly. Since we have no control over it, it's not insurance, it's either robbery or forced retirement investment. As an investment I can understand, but unless they return it, it should have been voluntary from the beginning, period. So, it's really just robbery.

With private insurance you run the risk of the insurer going belly up.

It's absolutely like insurance. How did you ever get the idea that somehow you were entitled to your money back? Who said that?

It's not supposed to be an investment. It's a social insurance program so that as a nation, we don't have hordes of old folks, disabled people and orphans living under freeways begging at stoplights because they have no assets to live on.

And it works great. Could you image what the country would be like without SS?

Its no more robbery than any other tax. Its the cost of being a US citizen. You don't have to pay US taxes, SS or otherwise, by moving out and revoking citizenship.

But with the federal government running 11 trillion dollar deficits there is no need to worry. Yep I can imagine what the country would look like without SS look at Pre-FDR.

OK. Don't like it.

 

[jreeves]

Thaks for point that out. And in Florida, if you want to drive, which many of us do, paying for insurance is not a choice.

If you don't want to pay the insurance you don't drive, therefore the insurance is still a choice.

If you don't want to pay SS, move out of the country and renounce your citizenship. It's a choice too.

You also have another choice, change a government that has stolen 2 trillion dollars worth of people's dreams. If this had happened in the private sector these bums would have been thrown in jail.

 

[Iriemon]

... 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.

Of course you'll ignore that I proved you were trying to distort poverty rates in the US. That really doesn't surprise me at all.

I'll have a discussion and defend my positions with you or anyone who can do so without resorting to name calling.

 

[jreeves]

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



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



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

The graph already includes real inflation numbers.

As did my GDP numbers that is why they were comparable.

I don't know, social spending wasn't really a factor before LBJ. So I don't know that too much analysis was done back in the 60's. But I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would be able to find something.
It seemed as though you were excusing the Medicaid spending because it was associated with rising medical care. So I was pointing out, if the government foots the bill then it is welfare, regardless of other conditions surrounding the spending.

That's fair. The difference is that welfare hasn't been increasing so much because the govt is giving out more and more but because the cost of providing medical care has increased so dramatically.

There is one of three things going on here, either you are completely unable to rub two thoughts together or your intentionally trying to distort the facts again, which one is it? The spending on the chart is in 2000 dollars, not actual dollars. Which means they have factored in real inflation.

Medical care costs have been rising even more reason we should find people work and not make them government dependents.