Social security and the budget - the big lie !

[4248]

The President states he offered Social Security cuts as a "Compromise" -

He claims he is trying to balance the budget.

Heres a fact: Even if you eliminated social security it couldn't help reduce the Federal Budget or deficit.


Why: Social security isn't funded by any part of that budget or debt - social security is funded by the taxes taken from our wages.


So offering to cut our benefits is President Obama's way of black mailing Republicans.

He's saying, "Those Republicans won't compromise."

I for one believe offering to cut social security, veterans benefits and benefits to disabled Americans is not in any way a compromise.

Its UnAmerican. Republicans need to make this plain to the President and his rich Dem pals - Social Security is not to be touched.

Its almost like President Obama is under mining his own Party's Future. In the next few elections they will be left holding the bag for the most invasive anti gun ownership scheme and possibly the destruction of an American safety net - Social Security.

[mikenold]

The President states he offered Social Security cuts as a "Compromise" -

He claims he is trying to balance the budget.

Heres a fact: Even if you eliminated social security it couldn't help reduce the Federal Budget or deficit.


Why: Social security isn't funded by any part of that budget or debt - social security is funded by the taxes taken from our wages.


So offering to cut our benefits is President Obama's way of black mailing Republicans.

He's saying, "Those Republicans won't compromise."

I for one believe offering to cut social security, veterans benefits and benefits to disabled Americans is not in any way a compromise.

Its UnAmerican. Republicans need to make this plain to the President and his rich Dem pals - Social Security is not to be touched.

Its almost like President Obama is under mining his own Party's Future. In the next few elections they will be left holding the bag for the most invasive anti gun ownership scheme and possibly the destruction of an American safety net - Social Security.

You are correct here, the president offers nothing but a bad deal for Republicans and the US taxpayer. Social Security is NOT an entitlement. It is fully funded by the monies taken from the taxpayer is part of the payroll tax. The social programs that should be cut are welfare, medicaid, food stamps and the special interests like Planned Parenthood, energy subsidies and the many "studies" that are done each year such as the mating habits of the fruit fly. Obama does not want to balance any budget nor reduce our deficit. He has a different plan for our country and it is not good for the taxpayers or law abiding citizens but rather buying votes and funding his allies.

[WNYresident]

Social Security should have NEVER been touched for any other purpose other than what it's intended use.

[Mindcrime]

Social Security should have NEVER been touched for any other purpose other than what it's intended use.

Absolutely.

Social Security is in trouble for a few reasons: 1) The Social Security trust fund that is supposed to exist, doesn't really. The government has been using SS surpluses and putting them into the general fund, making the annual deficit look smaller than it is.

2) Once a person makes more than $110,000, they don't have to pay any more into Social Security. Also, SS taxes only exist on wages and bonuses, not on other types of income.

3) When SS first came out, there were 7 people paying into the system for every person who collected from it. In 2010, there were only 3.2 people paying into the system for every person collecting. By 2040, it's estimated only 2.1 people will be paying into the system, for every person collecting.

That being said, Social Security is currently fully solvent until 2037, and is able to pay 76% of benefits afterward. But in the very long term, SS isn't sustainable unless they change the rules. I'd start by raising the cap significantly.

[steven]

That being said, Social Security is currently fully solvent until 2037, and is able to pay 76% of benefits afterward. But in the very long term, SS isn't sustainable unless they change the rules. I'd start by raising the cap significantly.

I would say a lot less then even that estimate. The Biotech revolution is due any year now. People will be living a lot longer in the future. At the end of the day pushing the age limit up while unpopular will have to be done IMO

[300miles]

Social security isn't funded by any part of that budget or debt - social security is funded by the taxes taken from our wages.

I agree they shouldn't be reducing SS benefits in this way. As it is, most Americans won't have enough money to retire in old age. If SS is the only thing they got then we shouldn't be reducing it.

But I disagree on the "it's not an entitlement" argument. ALL entitlements are funded by our tax dollars and so is SS. In this case it comes back to benefit all of us personally based loosely on what we put in, but it's not some sort of 401K where the money we put in is the money we take out. Some people put zero dollars into SS but get huge benefit from it. Others pay in a lot and never live long enough to enjoy it. SS includes disability benefits and survivor benefits that aren't even tied to your work history. There's a fine line here between paid benefit and entitlement.

Once a person makes more than $110,000, they don't have to pay any more into Social Security.
...
I'd start by raising the cap significantly.

But doesn't that cap also limit their benefits? If we raised the cap then we'd also have to raise the benefits paid out later.

[Genoobie]

I would say a lot less then even that estimate. The Biotech revolution is due any year now. People will be living a lot longer in the future. At the end of the day pushing the age limit up while unpopular will have to be done IMO

I don't entirely disagree. However, the Biotech revolution is quite some time away from having people live longer AND healthier.

[steven]

exactly which is why I said its going to get worse. Not sure why you added "however" since you are agreeing with me. as mindcrime said

In 2010, there were only 3.2 people paying into the system for every person collecting. By 2040, it's estimated only 2.1 people will be paying into the system, for every person collecting.

The 2040 estimate is way off if the biotech revolution only delivers on half its promises. The age will have to be raised

[mikenold]

I agree they shouldn't be reducing SS benefits in this way. As it is, most Americans won't have enough money to retire in old age. If SS is the only thing they got then we shouldn't be reducing it.

But I disagree on the "it's not an entitlement" argument. ALL entitlements are funded by our tax dollars and so is SS. In this case it comes back to benefit all of us personally based loosely on what we put in, but it's not some sort of 401K where the money we put in is the money we take out. Some people put zero dollars into SS but get huge benefit from it. Others pay in a lot and never live long enough to enjoy it. SS includes disability benefits and survivor benefits that aren't even tied to your work history. There's a fine line here between paid benefit and entitlement.


But doesn't that cap also limit their benefits? If we raised the cap then we'd also have to raise the benefits paid out later.

An entitlement is something that you get for nothing. You cannot get Social Security unless you paid in. Maybe you are thinking of SS Disability which is a different program.

[sharky]

Just remember, ponzi schemes are illegal, unless the gov't is the one running it