Here we go again, SS and Medicare going Bankrupt but not welfare?

[MrShangles]

Can Medicare, Social Security survive 10,000 new boomers a day?

By the time the last of this generation approaches retirement age in 2029, 18 percent of the U.S. will be at least that age, the Pew Research Center projects. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates there will be 81 million beneficiaries in 2030. For sure, many of those Americans will resist retirement if possible for both economic and lifestyle reasons.

But the explosive volume of Americans qualifying for benefits will put extraordinary pressure on government spending for Social Security and Medicare – two of the premier federal entitlement programs that are gradually running short of cash.

Would it be better to stop Welfare after 2 years, FORCE people back to work, instead of them suckling the government teat forever?

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

Half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities. There is a 3 month limit on singles and couples without children and some states have gone further to require that they have jobs.

For the most part, the poor have jobs. I suppose you want them to get a second job, single mothers with kids should forgo raising their kids in favor a full time job, and of course children, the disabled and the sick should also work. Everybody works right, except of course the uber rich who live off their capital gains and tax free bonds.

I know folks that scam the system, they have more babies cause it equals more government money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

One bad apple ruins the whole bunch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

This is exactly the problem with making these programs mandatory. If Social Security was voluntary, these kinds of stories would be a mark against them. People might hear them and, along with the low rate of return and political volatility, decide there are better ways to save for the future. And those responsible for the success of Social Security would have stronger incentive to take care of the people falling through the cracks, as well as deal with those abusing the system.

But Social Security isn't voluntary, and its administrators have no such incentives. They can fuck around as much as they want as long as they can maintain slim majority support for their program.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

After that dual grand larceny performance, anyone who believes that Americans will fall for "Universal Anything" ever again -- needs to have their heads examined.

don't know why you say that?? with all the govt intervention, we virtually have universal health care now. If we switch to single payer so that our socialism is as efficient as European socialism we can save enough money to pay off the national debt!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But Social Security isn't voluntary,

private accounts should be mandatory, if voluntary who would pay for folks 65+ who forgot to save??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can Medicare, Social Security survive 10,000 new boomers a day?

By the time the last of this generation approaches retirement age in 2029, 18 percent of the U.S. will be at least that age, the Pew Research Center projects. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates there will be 81 million beneficiaries in 2030. For sure, many of those Americans will resist retirement if possible for both economic and lifestyle reasons.

But the explosive volume of Americans qualifying for benefits will put extraordinary pressure on government spending for Social Security and Medicare – two of the premier federal entitlement programs that are gradually running short of cash.

Would it be better to stop Welfare after 2 years, FORCE people back to work, instead of them suckling the government teat forever?

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

Half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities. There is a 3 month limit on singles and couples without children and some states have gone further to require that they have jobs.

For the most part, the poor have jobs. I suppose you want them to get a second job, single mothers with kids should forgo raising their kids in favor a full time job, and of course children, the disabled and the sick should also work. Everybody works right, except of course the uber rich who live off their capital gains and tax free bonds.

I know folks that scam the system, they have more babies cause it equals more government money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

SS disability and Medicare are probably 40% fraud!! It's that bad. Uber liberal 60 Minutes did segments on both. The waste corruption and inefficiency are not to be believed, but then again 120 million starved to death because liberal govt programs controlled everything in USSR and Red China so what's not to be believed!!

 

[dblack]

But Social Security isn't voluntary,

private accounts should be mandatory, if voluntary who would pay for folks 65+ who forgot to save??

Ed, please stop pretending.

 

[flacaltenn]

After that dual grand larceny performance, anyone who believes that Americans will fall for "Universal Anything" ever again -- needs to have their heads examined.

don't know why you say that?? with all the govt intervention, we virtually have universal health care now. If we switch to single payer so that our socialism is as efficient as European socialism we can save enough money to pay off the national debt!

Switching to govt services is RARELY a way to "save money". Govt doesn't run Medicare. It relies on contractors for all the processing. A lot of the costs are hidden and distributed in ways that never get accounted for. Like the "collections" part or the case paperwork. And oversight and management costs are distributed so widely in govt,, that any simple ass audit never captures the real costs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not to mention the fact, that the reimbursement scales cause losses for doctors and service providers that are SUBSIDIZED by higher costs to everyone else.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Switching to govt services is RARELY a way to "save money".

nobody is talking about switching to govt services, just switching from one from of socialism to a more efficient form of socialism like the one they have in Europe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, please stop pretending.

pretending what exactly?? I wonder why you forgot to say??

 

[Flopper]

Can Medicare, Social Security survive 10,000 new boomers a day?

By the time the last of this generation approaches retirement age in 2029, 18 percent of the U.S. will be at least that age, the Pew Research Center projects. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates there will be 81 million beneficiaries in 2030. For sure, many of those Americans will resist retirement if possible for both economic and lifestyle reasons.

But the explosive volume of Americans qualifying for benefits will put extraordinary pressure on government spending for Social Security and Medicare – two of the premier federal entitlement programs that are gradually running short of cash.

Would it be better to stop Welfare after 2 years, FORCE people back to work, instead of them suckling the government teat forever?

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

Half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities. There is a 3 month limit on singles and couples without children and some states have gone further to require that they have jobs.

For the most part, the poor have jobs. I suppose you want them to get a second job, single mothers with kids should forgo raising their kids in favor a full time job, and of course children, the disabled and the sick should also work. Everybody works right, except of course the uber rich who live off their capital gains and tax free bonds.

I know folks that scam the system, they have more babies cause it equals more government money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

One bad apple ruins the whole bunch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That does not apply and you know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can Medicare, Social Security survive 10,000 new boomers a day? Would it be better to stop Welfare after 2 years, FORCE people back to work, instead of them suckling the government teat forever?

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

Half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities. There is a 3 month limit on singles and couples without children and some states have gone further to require that they have jobs.

For the most part, the poor have jobs. I suppose you want them to get a second job, single mothers with kids should forgo raising their kids in favor a full time job, and of course children, the disabled and the sick should also work. Everybody works right, except of course the uber rich who live off their capital gains and tax free bonds.

I know folks that scam the system, they have more babies cause it equals more government money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

One bad apple ruins the whole bunch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That does not apply and you know it.

yes SS and Medicare have some tiny spending restraint built into them
based on how they are funded but welfare has none since it is funded out of general revenue.

 

[Flopper]

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

This is exactly the problem with making these programs mandatory. If Social Security was voluntary, these kinds of stories would be a mark against them. People might hear them and, along with the low rate of return and political volatility, decide there are better ways to save for the future. And those responsible for the success of Social Security would have stronger incentive to take care of the people falling through the cracks, as well as deal with those abusing the system.

But Social Security isn't voluntary, and its administrators have no such incentives. They can fuck around as much as they want as long as they can maintain slim majority support for their program.

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves. They will select the right plan, not be swayed by emotions or sales tactics. About half the population might well do this but what about the rest of the population that selects the alternative to Social Security and does poorly? Will government step in and make up those loses? And what happens when the person becomes disable? And what about survivor benefits?
Social Security is a safety net, not a retirement plan. It is money that you can count on no matter how bad the economy or markets, there will be a guaranteed amount that you can count on and build your retirement plan on.

BTW the people I said that could not get their disability benefits; they did get them, it just took quite a while, over a year which is totally wrong. The reason for this kind of delay is that there has been a lot scamming of disability benefits.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And I know someone that's disable to the point he's bed ridden and has been fighting to get the Social Security disability benefits he is entitled for over a year.

However, anecdotal evidence such as some one scamming the system, can't get the disability benefits they are entitle, or on welfare and have a 60 inch TV and drive big car are meaningless because they are the extremes meant to illustrate a point, not the norm, the 1%, not the 99%.

This is exactly the problem with making these programs mandatory. If Social Security was voluntary, these kinds of stories would be a mark against them. People might hear them and, along with the low rate of return and political volatility, decide there are better ways to save for the future. And those responsible for the success of Social Security would have stronger incentive to take care of the people falling through the cracks, as well as deal with those abusing the system.

But Social Security isn't voluntary, and its administrators have no such incentives. They can fuck around as much as they want as long as they can maintain slim majority support for their program.

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves. They will select the right plan, not be swayed by emotions or sales tactics. About half the population might well do this but what about the rest of the population that selects the alternative to Social Security and does poorly? Will government step in and make up those loses? And what happens when the person becomes disable? And what about survivor benefits?
Social Security is a safety net, not a retirement plan. It is money that you can count on no matter how bad the economy or markets, there will be a guaranteed amount that you can count on and build your retirement plan on.

BTW the people I said that could not get their disability benefits; they did get them, it just took quite a while, over a year which is totally wrong. The reason for this kind of delay is that there has been a lot scamming of disability benefits.

private plans would make average Americans rich with estates of $1.4 million. That is far better than the dog food money liberals give you now as SS if you live long enough to collect a penny! Those not smart enough to invest 95% of us would be forced into approved ETF's. The whole idea is to keep the money out of liberal hands and let it grow into millions with the economy!!

 

[dblack]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

Sure there is a moral reason if someone invests badly and then is destitute at retirement we don't have a heart to watch him starve

 

[dblack]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

Sure there is a moral reason if someone invests badly and then is destitute at retirement we don't have a heart to watch him starve

Stop pretending Ed.

 

[Flopper]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

From a philosophical view point, I understand why you feel a mandated safety net is wrong. However, from a pragmatic point of view, you should be able to understand the consequence of having no guaranteed safety net.

Today, 1 in 3 Americans has nothing saved for retirement at all and most of those that do, have seriously under funded the money they will need to live on in retirement. Without a safety net, tens of millions of these people would be pushed into retirement when they can longer work with nothing to live on. Congress would do what congress always does, extend social service benefits at a huge cost to make sure these people had food, clothing, healthcare, and a place to live, ignoring the fact that they did not take responsibility for provided their own safety net. Those of us that did provide for retirement, disability, money for love ones upon our death would end up paying for their irresponsible behavior. I feel that this is also wrong, but I certainly would not want to see millions of people starving to death in one of the wealthiest country on earth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

Sure there is a moral reason if someone invests badly and then is destitute at retirement we don't have a heart to watch him starve

Stop pretending Ed.

translation: I was wrong so will try to change subject with personal attack

 

[dblack]

Most people who advocate for voluntary participation generally assume that those selecting alternatives will tend to make the correct choices for themselves.

That's definitely not my assumption. I'm rejecting the notion that it's up to government to decide which are the "correct" choices in the first place. Such judgements are personal and subjective, and there's simply no moral reason to coerce conformity on the matter.

Sure there is a moral reason if someone invests badly and then is destitute at retirement we don't have a heart to watch him starve

Stop pretending Ed.

translation: I was wrong so will try to change subject with personal attack

As in stop pretending you have any understanding of the meaning freedom or free markets.